Oral
Answers to Questions

Home Department

The Secretary of State was asked—

Knife Crime

Afzal Khan: What steps he is taking to tackle knife crime in Greater Manchester.

Tobias Ellwood: What steps he is taking to tackle knife crime in Bournemouth.

Chris Philp: As we have said often in debates this House, knife crime is a terrible crime; it tears families apart and all too often takes young people from us. As the House will know, violent crime overall has reduced by 51% since 2010, but there is more we can do. That includes funding violence reduction units—Manchester’s VRU has £20 million of funding for the coming financial year—and running hotspot policing in areas where serious violence and antisocial behaviour are a problem. The £66 million of funding for that across England and Wales is in addition to the existing police funding settlement.

Afzal Khan: In September 2021, my constituent Rhamero West was chased across Manchester, stabbed and killed—he was just 16. His mum, Kelly, has worked tirelessly to make sure that no other families have to face the suffering she and her family have faced, including by raising money to fund a network of bleed kits across Greater Manchester and a youth project in Fallowfield. She wants to tell Rhamero’s story to help save other young lives, so will the Minister agree to meet her?

Chris Philp: Yes, of course. It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is campaigning bravely, as so many parents do, to try to bring some good out of a terrible personal tragedy, so I would be delighted to meet him and his constituent.

Tobias Ellwood: May I quickly put on record my thanks to the Security Minister and the Policing Minister for their efforts in upgrading MPs’ security?
Across the UK, ever more young people are choosing to carry knives. Sadly, that is the case in Bournemouth as well. Violence reduction units are dedicated police units that have a proven track record of reducing knife crime in town centres in other parts of the country, not just through increased policing, but by working in the community, including at schools, to educate youngsters on the dangers of carrying a knife. I am grateful for the increase in police numbers in Dorset, but will the Minister ask the Chancellor to see whether extra funds can be provided specifically for a VRU for Bournemouth?

Chris Philp: I will convey my right hon. Friend’s request to the Chancellor, and I put on record my thanks for his tireless campaigning and that of other Dorset MPs for resources for that county and its police force. Dorset police will receive about £11 million more next year than it received the previous year. Thanks to the campaigning of my right hon. Friend and other Dorset MPs, it also received an exceptional special grant last year of £600,000 to help campaign against violence.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that violence reduction units have a very positive effect. In the next financial year, £55 million will be spent on them for the 20 police force areas judged to have the most significant  violence problems. Dorset is not among those 20, but I will pass his message to the Chancellor and I know that through our work with the police and crime commissioner, Dorset police and the PCC will do everything they can to combat knife crime not just in Bournemouth, but in Dorset as a whole.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Alex Norris: With incidents up by 70% since 2015, the public are looking for leadership on knife crime. Earlier this month, the Government would not support our plan, which includes broadening the ban on zombie knives to include ninja swords; an end-to-end review of online sales; and criminal penalties for tech execs who allow their platform to be used for illicit sales. The Government rejected our plan, but what they have in place simply is not working, so we will push again during the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill. Will they accept it then?

Chris Philp: The shadow Minister should be aware that according to the crime survey of England and Wales —the only reliable long-term indicator for volume crime trends, according to the Office for National Statistics—violent crime is down by 51% since 2010. He asked about online knife sales. He should be aware that when the Online Safety Act 2023 is fully in force, very strong action will be taken, for example against online marketplaces, and the illegal sale of knives online will become a priority offence under schedule 7. He will also know that we are bringing forward legislation to ban a range of machetes and zombie-style knives. We define them in relation to the features they have. For example, knives over 7 inches in length with two cutting edges and serrations will be banned. Those are just some of the measures we are taking, all of which have helped to bring down violent crime by 51% since 2010.

Policing Homelessness and Rough Sleeping

Nickie Aiken: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Criminal Justice Bill on policing homelessness and rough sleeping.

Chris Philp: The Government are committed to ending rough sleeping. Huge amounts of money are being invested in getting people off the streets. Rough sleeping levels in England are 35% lower than they were in 2017. Criminal sanctions where rough sleeping is causing a problem, for example for businesses, are very much the last resort in the Criminal Justice Bill. The first resort is giving people the support they need to find accommodation.

Nickie Aiken: As I walked here today, I passed several rough sleepers in doorways and in tents. The police already have the ability to move rough sleepers on under a number of different pieces of legislation, including the Public Order Act 1986, the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the Highways Act 1980. Does the Minister understand my concern that what is suggested in the Criminal Justice Bill criminalises rough sleepers and does nothing to help them? The police already have the powers but are failing to use them.

Chris Philp: The powers in the pieces of legislation my hon. Friend lists are not precisely the same as those in the Criminal Justice Bill. The Bill does not criminalise rough sleeping in general; it criminalises particular types of rough sleeping when it causes a nuisance. That said, as I have signalled privately to various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), the Government are willing to look at the way those provisions are drafted, to ensure that they are tightly and narrowly drawn, because out intention is that the first stop will always be to offer support. Criminal sanctions are appropriate only as a last resort if rough sleeping causes a serious problem, for example for businesses.

Mike Amesbury: As drafted, the Bill is a new vagrancy Act with bells on. Rough sleeping is up 75% since 2010. Rather than criminalise people who happen to be rough sleeping, should we not provide support and build the houses they need?

Chris Philp: As I said, my colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are providing extremely comprehensive packages of support. Rough sleeping is down by 35% since 2017 and by 28% since before the pandemic in 2019. The Government are willing to look at changes to make these provisions tightly defined and narrow. The intention is to use criminal sanctions only as a last resort where rough sleeping is disrupting a business, for example, and preventing it from operating. It is a last resort—the first resort will always be offering help and support.

Legal Migration

David Duguid: What steps he is taking to reduce levels of legal migration.

Sarah Dines: What steps he is taking to reduce levels of legal migration.

Tom Pursglove: On 4 December, the Government announced a package of new measures to further reduce net migration, including but not limited to stopping overseas care workers bringing family dependants, increasing the salary threshold for skilled worker visas to £38,700 and raising the minimum income requirement for family visas in stages to £38,700. The changes are being introduced gradually from early 2024 and are not retrospective.

David Duguid: I welcome the measures taken to reduce abuses of the immigration system, but I also recognise the need to exempt critical occupations where we have a specific shortage from the new minimum salary, for example health and care workers. However, in the Migration Advisory Committee’s interim review of the immigration salary list, published on Friday, several occupations have been removed because a discounted salary of around £31,000 is well above the going rate for such occupations. Given the vital and growing importance of food security across the country, will my hon. Friend commit to a review of those occupations which, although not the highest tech or highest paid jobs in our economy, are none the less critical for our food sector and our rural and coastal communities?

Tom Pursglove: There is no stronger advocate for the fishing industry in this House than my hon. Friend. He will appreciate that we have received that return from the MAC. We will look very carefully at its recommendations, but my hon. Friend knows that as a Government we have been consistently flexible in responding to the needs of the fishing sector. I would argue that there is more we can do to promote domestic employment, but let me take this matter away and consider his representations.

Sarah Dines: A key issue often raised by my constituents is the desire to see a dramatic reduction in legal migration. Bearing in mind that the Opposition appear to have no plan in that regard, can my hon. Friend reassure me that he will look at new ways to stop this migration, that he will make sure that everybody has the right to work in this country and that we will not decrease wages by bringing in cheap labour from abroad?

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend is very supportive of the holistic approach that the Government are taking on this issue. The measures that we have announced and are taking forward will reduce the inflows by 300,000. It is important to consider this against the back to work plan that the Department for Work and Pensions is delivering to encourage more people to take on these roles domestically. She should be absolutely certain that we as a Government will deliver on these measures and will continue to keep them under review to see whether we can go further. That stands in stark contrast to those on the Opposition Front Bench, who have no plan at all.

Zarah Sultana: To cut a long story short, a constituent’s skilled work visa application was mistakenly withdrawn by the Home Office. The error has resulted in him no longer having the right to work in the UK, forcing him and his wife to leave their jobs. His wife is five months pregnant and, although they pay their NHS surcharge, the Home Office error means that they are again getting healthcare bills. The situation is increasingly desperate, so I ask the Minister to meet me to look into this case and ensure that this Home Office error does not do any more harm than it already has for this young couple.

Tom Pursglove: The hon. Lady will appreciate that I do not have the specifics of the case to hand, but if she kindly shares them with me, I will look into the case as a matter of urgency.

Patrick Grady: I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to recognise that the right to claim asylum is allowed under international law and that, therefore, there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. On that basis, perhaps he can tell us whether he or any Minister has met people with lived experience of the system and whether he will meet the people at the Maryhill Integration Network in Glasgow North to discuss these issues.

Tom Pursglove: The hon. Member will recognise that, in an answer to one of his hon. Friends, I said that I would be willing to meet him and his Glasgow colleagues to discuss some of the challenges. I have made an undertaking to him that that meeting will happen, and I will make sure that it happens at the earliest possible opportunity. I am keen to understand what the challenges  are and to make sure that the support that we are providing to help facilitate move-ons, for example, is meeting the needs that exist.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Kinnock: Since our last Home Office questions, the list of Government failures on immigration has continued to grow relentlessly: 30,000 asylum seekers stuck in limbo, unable to be processed due to the Prime Minister’s legislative fiasco; 250 visas awarded to a care home that does not actually exist; net migration trebled; and criminals free to fly into our country undetected on private jets. Having just sacked the independent inspector of borders and immigration, is the Home Secretary sitting on 15 different reports by the inspector because he is checking for typos, or is it because he is utterly terrified of what those reports will tell us about this Government’s shambolic and failing immigration system?

Tom Pursglove: Let me answer that point very directly: having given proper consideration to those reports, we will be responding to them. As I said in the House last week, we will do so very soon. The shadow Minister mentioned the Government trying to dodge scrutiny. When it comes to the general aviation report, for example, it was our officials who asked the inspector to take it forward. Far from dodging scrutiny, we have invited it in that area. We will respond properly and thoroughly to that report in exactly the way that I undertook to do last week.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Alison Thewliss: People who come here to work, study and live make a significant impact on Scotland’s economy and society, so reducing their number is entirely self-defeating. Reunite Families UK has highlighted the disproportionate impact that Tory changes to visa income thresholds will have on women. I have asked the Minister this before, and I have yet to have an answer: when will he publish the full equality impact assessment on this damaging policy?

Tom Pursglove: We will publish the equality impact assessment associated with the policy in due course. The hon. Lady will appreciate that the Government’s position is clear that the current levels of net migration are not sustainable. We need to take forward a set of policy measures that deal with that and that promote domestic employment wherever possible. There is a strong moral case for the approach that we are taking. None of the measures being applied is retrospective, but we are convinced that this is the right thing to do. The British people think that action is needed, and action is what they are getting.

Alison Thewliss: I spent a lot of time this weekend with members of the Glasgow branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, which put on a major demonstration and a service in Glasgow cathedral at the weekend to mark two years since the escalation of Russian aggression in Ukraine. The Government’s changes to the Ukraine scheme came with very little notice and caused a great deal of uncertainty and distress in that community. Will the Minister tell me whether, for example,  a wife whose husband has been injured fighting on the frontline against Putin’s war machine will be able to sponsor her husband to come here under these restricted rules?

Tom Pursglove: As we said when we debated this issue in the House last week, the Government are very proud of the amazing response from people across this country who have opened their homes to Ukrainian refugees. There will continue to be an out-of-country route through the Homes for Ukraine scheme to facilitate people being able to come here from Ukraine. Ukrainian refugees here in the UK will be able to extend their visas. We gave that certainty way ahead of the curve, when compared with our international partners. Ukrainian nationals who would have qualified under the Ukraine family scheme will still be able to apply under Homes for Ukraine.

Transnational Repression by Hostile States

Preet Kaur Gill: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of steps taken by his Department to tackle transnational repression by hostile states.

Thomas Tugendhat: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is aware that the Government are continually assessing the potential threats to individual rights and freedoms and to safety across the United Kingdom. I thank her for the efforts she made to represent her views to me in a different forum.
Whenever we identify such threats, we will always use every measure at our disposal, including our intelligence services, to mitigate any threat to individuals. In the first instance, I urge anyone concerned for their safety to contact the police. The hon. Lady will no doubt be aware that the National Security Act 2023 includes measures to tackle foreign interference, including transnational repression. The defending democracy taskforce is reviewing the UK’s response to develop our understanding of the issue and ensure a system-wide response.

Preet Kaur Gill: Transnational repression to silence dissent in democracies is extremely serious. In recent months, Five Eyes nations have raised concerns about the actions of agents with links to India targeting Sikh activists in the United Kingdom. Most disturbingly, there have been alleged assassinations and foiled assassination plots. The US and Canadian authorities have taken the lead at senior levels to publicly call out this challenge to their sovereignty, the rule of law and their democratic values. Given the reports of British Sikhs facing similar threats, what steps are the Government taking to secure their safety? Will the Minister show the same strength as our partners do in publicly defending their democratic rights?

Thomas Tugendhat: Let me be completely clear: if there are any specific threats against any British citizen by any foreign power, we will take immediate action. The Sikh community should be as safe as every other community in the United Kingdom. All British citizens are equal, whatever their colour, creed, faith or political allegiance. The reality is that we have taken all the action we believe is appropriate at this stage. We of course maintain a very close relationship with our Five Eyes partners, and we are absolutely clear that if the situation changes and we need to take action, we will do so.

Dan Jarvis: Russia’s deadly poison attack in Salisbury, Iran’s intimidation of Iran International journalists and China’s secret police stations have long showed the need for a robust strategy to counter transnational repression on British soil. The Minister mentioned that a review is under way into the UK’s approach to transnational repression. When will it be published, and will it be part of a wider strategy to counter hostile state activity in this country?

Thomas Tugendhat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The review is under way, and it includes many different elements from communities from around the world who are now settled happily in the United Kingdom. He will understand why I will not go into individual details. Certain communities have been targeted, such as the Hong Kong Chinese community, which is now very welcome in the United Kingdom under a policy that this Government introduced—I am very proud of the number who have claimed asylum and taken the opportunity as British nationals overseas to settle here—and we are looking at others. We are open to any reports of transnational repression, and we are listening.

Violent Crime: Young People

Alex Cunningham: What steps his Department is taking to identify young people most at risk of being drawn into violent crime.

Sarah Owen: What steps his Department is taking to identify young people most at risk of being drawn into violent crime.

Laura Farris: Since 2019, we have invested £160 million in 20 violence reduction units across England and Wales, and a further £55 million has been committed this year. Violence reduction units have reached more than 270,000 young people. They bring together specialists from health, the police, local government and community organisations not just to tackle violent crime, but to identify the young people who are most at risk of being drawn into it and provide evidence-based interventions to support them.

Alex Cunningham: I am grateful for that answer. Children as young as 12 are being recruited by local drug dealers in the central wards of Stockton, and are provided with pocket money—huge sums for them—to carry and deliver class A and class B drugs. Many of them are in thrall to their balaclava-wearing controllers, who largely act with impunity. Although the police and other agencies work hard to combat such organised crime, Cleveland has the highest crime rate in the country, and police and councils do not have the fair funding needed to deal with criminals or provide good diversionary activities for those vulnerable young people. What will the Minister do to sort that out?

Laura Farris: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, under our tackling organised exploitation programme, we are keenly aware of the difference between victims and criminals, and that children are being drawn into criminal enterprises and gangs at ever-younger ages. I want to provide reassurance that where we have evidence of that happening, the child should be referred through  the national referral mechanism—the framework for identifying victims of exploitation by county lines groups and equivalents. That can be done with or without the child’s consent, and it provides the police with a vital tool not just to protect the child but to disrupt the criminal activity in which they are being enlisted.

Sarah Owen: Last week, Bedfordshire police reported that two drug dealers who had trafficked a vulnerable 15-year-old child from Luton to sell drugs were sentenced under modern slavery laws. Although that conviction is of course welcome, I think we can all agree that this is not just slavery; it is the despicable act of grooming children into a life of drugs, gangs and violence. Why do not the Government back our plans for a new specific offence to lock up such criminals for exactly what they are doing and stop them exploiting children and young people for a life of crime?

Laura Farris: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says. The Prime Minister implemented new measures to deal with child sexual exploitation in April of last year, but part of that deals with organised exploitation, which goes wider. I am glad to hear that those two criminals were convicted under modern slavery laws. I want to reassure her that, under our Criminal Justice Bill, which is making its way through the House, grooming gangs will receive enhanced sentences.

Theresa Villiers: It is deeply disturbing when children and young people are involved in violent crime. Experience from around the world shows that a whole-of-Government approach is crucial in tackling the problem, as has been acknowledged in successive Government strategies. Will the Minister give us an update on how the Government are ensuring that that is delivered?

Laura Farris: If I have understood my right hon. Friend’s question correctly, I can tell her that we are doing a huge amount on child exploitation. Only last week, we implemented the No. 1 recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, for mandatory reporting, and we have more to come. This remains a Government priority.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Feryal Clark: The Minister says that the Government are doing loads, but since 2018 there has been a huge increase in the number of weapons seized in schools in some areas of the country, with knives and Tasers found in some instances. Our young people continue to bear the brunt of the Tories’ decision to hollow out youth services and prevention work in our communities. Meanwhile, ninja swords and other weapons remain just a google search away. Parents should not fear for their children’s safety at school. When will the Government match Labour’s ambition for a Young Futures programme and prioritise the safety and opportunities of our young people?

Laura Farris: I make no apology for the success of our violence reduction units and the difference that they have made to young people’s lives since 2019. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire made the point that the crime survey for England and Wales shows that there has been a 51% fall in violent crime since 2010. More than that, our violence reduction  units, working in conjunction with our Grip hotspot policing, have delivered a statistically significant fall in violent injuries. Hospital admissions for knife crime and equivalent have fallen by 25% since 2019, and overall knife crime has fallen nationally by 5% since 2019, all in the life in this Parliament. We have banned zombie knives and cyclone knives, and our Criminal Justice Bill will give the police more powers to make pre-emptive seizures.

Police Bail Curfew Conditions

James Wild: What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of levels of compliance with post-charge police bail curfew conditions.

Chris Philp: Decisions on bail conditions are set, enforced and monitored locally, but it is very important that where police bail conditions are set down, they are adhered to, in order to protect the public.

James Wild: Three members of my constituent’s family were killed in an appalling dangerous driving case. The offender was on police bail at the time, with curfew conditions, for a separate offence. Given that legislation does not allow for tagging in such cases to enforce those curfew conditions, will my right hon. Friend consider bringing forward changes to the law so that electronic monitoring can be used for offenders released on post-charge police bail?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend raises a very important point, informed by a tragic case in his own constituency. He is right that, as it stands, the legislation does not allow for tagging of people who are simply on police bail—that is to say, before their first appearance in court. There are some considerations to do with whether tagging constitutes a form of punishment and whether that is appropriate prior to a court hearing. However, my hon. Friend raises a reasonable point informed by a constituency case, and I am happy to take it away and look at it with him.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for that response. Obviously, with a renewed and reinvigorated Northern Ireland Assembly and a Minister in place, we in Northern Ireland are very keen to work alongside the Minister on some of the suggestions he has referred to. Will he contact the policing and justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that what is going to happen here can happen to us in Northern Ireland, and that we can all gain the advantage?

Chris Philp: I thank the hon. Member for his question. It is, of course, very good news that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive have been restored. Policing is devolved, so the Assembly and Executive can set their own policy. However, if they would like any information about the policies we are pursuing in the England and Wales jurisdiction, I would be very happy to share that information and work constructively and collaboratively with all the devolved Administrations, including in Northern Ireland.

Local Policing

Andrew Selous: What recent discussions he has had with chief constables on delivering policing at a local level.

Chris Philp: We have very regular discussions with chief constables across the country about local policing—in fact, just this morning I had a discussion with the chief constable of Staffordshire Police about some local policing issues in that county. It is a dialogue that happens on a regular and ongoing basis. Police chief constables are, of course, operationally independent, but we work very closely in partnership with them.

Andrew Selous: Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and Houghton Regis are the third, fourth and fifth largest towns in Bedfordshire, yet they have a fraction of the police officers that are based in Luton and Bedford. Will the Minister speak to the chief constable to ensure that we get a fairer allocation of the record number of police officers we have in Bedfordshire, spread across the county and with a 24/7 first responder presence?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his part of Bedfordshire. He is quite right to say that Bedfordshire, in common with many other parts of the country—and indeed with England and Wales as a whole —has a record number of police officers. In the case of Bedfordshire, the number is 1,456, and across England and Wales as a whole we now have over 149,000 officers: that is more than we have ever had before, and over 3,000 more than we had under the last Labour Government.
I speak regularly to Chief Constable Trevor Rodenhurst and the excellent police and crime commissioner in Bedfordshire, Festus Akinbusoye. Of course, how they deploy their record headcount is a matter for them, rather than for Government, but I will certainly mention the issues that my hon. Friend has raised when I next speak to them—I think we are having a meeting quite shortly—and I know that my hon. Friend will mention these issues as well.

Dawn Butler: At the weekend I had to seek extra police support, due to the far-right abuse that I have suffered, which has been inspired and unleashed in part by the conspiracy theories and racist, Islamophobic, anti-Muslim hate peddled by the Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You cannot name Members.

Dawn Butler: It was peddled by Members of the Government party. Does the Minister agree that there is no place in this House or society for such divisive language? One Member has had the Whip removed. Does the Minister agree that other Members should also have the Whip removed, or does he agree with the points that were made?

Chris Philp: This House as a whole should be clear that hatred based on religion or race has no part in a civilised country, whether it is directed towards the  Jewish community, who have suffered a surge in antisemitism, or the Muslim community. The Conservative party is prepared to act extremely quickly, as we did at the weekend—a great deal faster than the Labour party when it had an issue in Rochdale.

Jonathan Gullis: I am pleased that the Minister made reference to his meeting with the chief constable of Staffordshire Police after a disgusting hate mob appeared outside a Stoke-on-Trent Conservative fundraiser on Friday. It appears that a police officer allowed members of the public, who were spewing their hatred, into the venue’s private function room, where they sought to intimidate, harass and bully members old and young—some as young as 11 years old. One individual involved used to be a member of the now proscribed terrorist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. Is it not about time that we in this House stood up— because, I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but the actions of last week emboldened these individuals to take such action—and said with a clear voice that democracy will not be subdued in this way?

Chris Philp: Yes, that is important. We make it clear in this House that Members of Parliament, elected councillors or anyone engaging in political activity, including attending political events, should be able to do so without intimidation and without harassment. No one in this House should feel that they have to change their vote, or change procedure, as a result of external pressure.
What happened in Stoke city on Friday evening was completely unacceptable. A political meeting was disrupted, and indeed closed down by protest. That is unacceptable. This morning, I met the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner of Staffordshire to make that clear. I also spoke this morning to the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Chief Constable Gavin Stephens, to make the same point. I am pleased to report to the House that four people have now been arrested in relation to the incident in Stoke city—[Interruption.]—on charges under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Sorry, Minister, but we cannot both be standing at the same time.

Ben Bradshaw: Has the Minister had a chance recently to talk to the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall Police, which has been in special measures since 2022, and is now being sued by seven former and serving women police officers for failing to deal with rapes, emotional abuse and beatings over a number of years? What can he do to reassure the public in Devon and Cornwall that these allegations will be thoroughly independently investigated and any wrongdoing acted on?

Chris Philp: Of course, we have the Independent Office for Police Conduct to make sure that there is an independent body available to investigate serious allegations about police forces or their conduct of particular investigations. On the Engage process, the chief inspector of constabulary chairs regular meetings of the policing performance   oversight group, where forces in Engage are looked at and overseen. Devon and Cornwall is one of those forces, along with the West Midlands and London.

Sheryll Murray: Local policing is really important. I have had some good news from my police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, which is that Liskeard is to have a new police inquiry office. Would my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this, and will he look at what further funding is available for this to happen in other towns?

Chris Philp: I pay tribute to the excellent police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, for the work that she has done to get the Liskeard centre open, and of course I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless work campaigning on behalf of Devon and Cornwall Police. Devon and Cornwall Police now has 3,718 officers, which is a record, and next year it will be receiving £28 million more funding compared with the current financial year, providing plenty of money to invest in services, as my hon. Friend quite rightly requests.

Emma Hardy: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for everything you do to keep Members of Parliament safe. I know that so much of it goes unseen.
I know, from talking to residents in Hull West and Hessle, that they are deeply concerned about the rise in antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour is not trivial; it has a huge impact on neighbourhoods and on the mental health of the people subjected to it. So why are the Government failing to take it seriously?

Chris Philp: With great respect, that is complete nonsense. The Government published an antisocial behaviour action plan just last year. From April of this year, in just a couple of months’ time, every single police area in England and Wales will have funding—£66 million in total—to run hotspot patrols in areas where there is antisocial behaviour or serious violence problems. We have 10 force areas running pilots for immediate justice, where people committing ASB have to do immediate reparations, and we banned nitrous oxide on 8 November last year. So an action plan is being implemented, and every single police force is having money to run hotspot patrols to combat ASB.

Asylum Accommodation: Safety and Wellbeing

Olivia Blake: What steps his Department is taking to help ensure the safety and wellbeing of asylum seekers in asylum accommodation.

Tom Pursglove: We continue to provide safe, habitable and fit-for-purpose accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. The Home Office has established procedures to hold contracted accommodation providers responsible for the provision of the safety, security and wellbeing of asylum seekers. In addition, asylum seekers have access to a 24/7 helpline to raise concerns and make formal complaints.

Olivia Blake: Recent tragic events demonstrate that even those who are at risk of suicide are ignored after repeatedly raising concerns about their mental health in asylum accommodation. Why have Ministers changed the allocation of asylum accommodation policy to make it harder for people to prove that they are at risk of harm at a particular site? Will they learn the lessons from December’s tragic incident?

Tom Pursglove: I do not accept the depiction that the hon. Lady paints of the situation. We of course make appropriate case-by-case decisions about accommodation arrangements for individuals, reflecting the needs they have and with proper referrals made, as one would rightly expect, to any other agencies that may be required to ensure somebody’s health or wellbeing, and that any safeguarding issues are properly addressed. Migrant Help support is of course available for people to access 24/7 and raise any issues.

Illegal Migration: Co-operation with France

Michael Fabricant: What recent progress he has made with his French counterparts on tackling illegal migration.

Michael Tomlinson: Joint working with our French partners is crucial to stopping the boats. Thanks in no small part to that joint working, small boat crossings were down by 46% last year.

Michael Fabricant: My spies tell me that my hon. and learned Friend was in France just nine days ago. Were there any lessons to be learned from the French authorities about more co-operation that can go on to stop the boats even further?

Michael Tomlinson: My hon. Friend is right: I was in France nine days ago. Even while I was there, a boat was seized, but he is right to say that more needs to be done. Personnel, equipment and technology are key to breaking the business model of the criminal gangs. Having met the new Préfet du Nord, I am in no doubt that this is a joint mission.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Minister update the House on the number of illegal migrants who have crossed the channel and are currently being accommodated in hotels at the expense of the public purse? How does that compare with the number of UK nationals who are currently homeless or sleeping rough?

Michael Tomlinson: I can confirm that the Government have beaten our target of closing 50 hotels by the end of January, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to welcome.

Asylum Hotels

Daniel Kawczynski: What progress his Department has made on closing asylum hotels.

Tom Pursglove: The Home Office has been clear that the use of hotels was a temporary and short-term measure to ensure that we met our statutory obligation to accommodate destitute asylum seekers during a period of unprecedented  numbers of small boat arrivals. We are making significant progress in closing hotels, with more than 64 closed by the end of January.

Daniel Kawczynski: I thank the Minister for that answer. Shrewsbury has more listed buildings than any other town in England, and we benefit from beautiful architecture that attracts a huge amount of tourism from across the United Kingdom and overseas. Our top hotel in the centre of Shrewsbury is being used to house illegal migrants. We were given an assurance that the hotel would be taken out of that use, yet we have heard nothing further from the Minister or his Department. When will the Lion Hotel in Shrewsbury revert back to its normal use, which is housing tourists?

Tom Pursglove: It is certainly the case that I have not given an assurance to that effect, but I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that we are tracking ahead of profile when it comes to closing hotels, and the number of people accommodated in hotels is going down. We will continue to make progress in order to allow more closures. I hear his representations about the hotel in his constituency. We are committed to this. We are making progress and we will see it through.

Tim Farron: Obviously the overwhelming majority of those seeking asylum here and who are in residential accommodation desperately do not want to be in that accommodation. They want their application to be heard and processed quickly. The Minister knows that around three quarters of those people will be granted asylum in this country. Does he agree that part of the process, while a person is waiting for their hearing and for their decision to be made, surely should be looking at integration? Given that, is not time to give asylum seekers the right to work in this country? That would be good for them morally, but also good for the Government and the taxpayer, because they would contribute to their own upkeep.

Tom Pursglove: It is fair to say that such an approach would make a mockery of our legal migration system and people playing by the rules, lodging applications and paying the appropriate fees. It is right that where people are granted asylum, we support them to be able to move on as quickly as possible. Work is a key part of that. I just wish the hon. Gentleman had the same energy to try to help more of our people domestically to be able to take on these roles, rather than saying that we should resort to migrant labour all the time.

Neighbourhood Policing

Sarah Edwards: What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of neighbourhood policing levels.

Chris Philp: Figures for local policing started to be published in 2015, with 61,083 roles at the time. The most recent figures for March last year show that the number had increased by 6,000 to 67,785.

Sarah Edwards: With a growing number of my constituents not even reporting crimes because they do not have access to a public police station, will the Minister reconsider additional funds to ensure that local police stations, such as Tamworth’s, are reopening public-facing police desks?

Chris Philp: Staffordshire constabulary will receive an extra £16 million next year compared with the current financial year, which is a significant increase. They now have more than 2,000 police officers due to our uplift programme, which has seen record police numbers across England and Wales.

Alexander Stafford: One of the most commonly reported crimes in Rother Valley is burglary, either to rob homes or to break into homes and steal car keys. Does the Minister agree that every area, especially South Yorkshire, should have a dedicated burglary police team to deal with those particular issues and ensure we clamp down on those awful crimes?

Chris Philp: The previous Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) was successful in securing a commitment from police to ensure that every residential burglary has a visit from the police, but my hon. Friend’s idea for a dedicated burglary taskforce is excellent, and I commend it to all police and crime commissioners.

Topical Questions

Chris Stephens: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Thomas Tugendhat: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a brief statement. Over the past few weeks, we have seen disgraceful attempts to intimidate this House, to undermine the democratic process and to spread fear among those who have been elected to represent our country. That is unacceptable. It must end.
To this House, I want to say clearly that the Government will defend our democracy. We are working with the police and with Parliament to ensure that disagreements are resolved in this House through debate, not outside with threats of violence. To those who seek to threaten this House, I say this: we will not be cowed; we will not be intimidated; and we will not be silenced. We will do whatever is necessary to protect those elected to represent us, to safeguard our freedoms and to protect our rights. I know I speak for colleagues across the whole House when I say we will always act in the interests of our constituents and our country.

Chris Stephens: I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that there has been a 335% increase in Islamophobic hate cases in the UK since 7 October, and a 589% rise in antisemitic incidents compared with 2022. That is affecting our most marginalised and vulnerable groups. What steps is the Minister taking to protect worshippers and faith schools and to reduce unprecedented levels of hate across these islands?

Thomas Tugendhat: Over the past year this Government have increased the funding to the Community Security Trust by around £3 million, taking the total to around £18 million. We have spent a similar amount on other places of worship—only last week I approved spending on security measures to mosques and churches around the country, exactly to counter the kind of hate crimes that the hon. Member described. We have engaged with not just the Community Security Trust but organisations  such as Tell MAMA, which do a fantastic job of engaging with us on anti-Muslim hatred. It is extremely important that we all work together, not just to support and protect every religion and community in our country but to ensure that we lower the tension so that we can all be free to express our views.

Rob Butler: Stealing from small convenience stories is causing concern because of both the financial impact on owners and the threat of violence towards staff. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting colleagues and me to discuss this last week. I pay tribute to the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner Matthew Barber for his excellent retail crime strategy. Will my right hon. Friend set out how the Government plan to tackle those thefts and threats?

Chris Philp: This is a very serious issue. The Government have a retail crime action plan agreed with police, which includes making sure that the police always attend when a suspect is detained, when police attendance is needed to secure evidence or when there has been an assault. It also includes always following up every single line of inquiry when retail crime occurs, including running footage of the offender through the facial recognition database, and identifying and going after the criminal gangs that often are behind shoplifting.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Yvette Cooper: Last week, Tell MAMA reported that anti-Muslim hate incidents have trebled. That follows recent reports that antisemitic incidents have hit a record high. We all must challenge all forms of threat, prejudice, racism and hate. Having heard the words from the former deputy chair of the Conservative party of a Muslim Mayor, who said that his “mates” are Islamist extremists and that he has been taken over by “Islamists”, is any Home Office Minister now prepared to stand up and say not only that those words about the London Mayor are wrong, but that they believe they were Islamophobic and should be condemned as such?

Thomas Tugendhat: Within 24 hours of those words being used, this Prime Minister took immediate action by removing the Whip from that individual. If only all leaders of every political party were as quick to remove the Whip from those who spread hatred in our community. As Rochdale sadly demonstrates, they are not.

Yvette Cooper: I am sorry that the Minister, who I know takes issues seriously, chose not to respond to my question. Rightly, on all sides of the House we have called out and condemned antisemitism, and we must continue to do so. If Government Ministers cannot openly challenge Islamophobia, they play into the hands of extremists—both far right and Islamist. The Minister will know that hate crime fuels extremism. If the Government took any of this seriously, they would not have just ditched plans for a new hate crime strategy or left it nine years to update the countering extremism strategy. Does he agree that it is not just their inability to say the words but their failure to act that is leaving our communities exposed?

Thomas Tugendhat: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not see the action as clearly as others in this House. The Whip was removed immediately because anti-Muslim hatred is wrong. There is no hierarchy in hatred or racism. It is all wrong. Anti-Muslim hatred is wrong. The support that some have given to Islamist communities in our country is tragic and this Government will work against it. That is exactly why we have proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir—because we will work against hatred from whichever community, in whatever way it comes.

Laurence Robertson: I understand that the Government are looking to further restrict the ability of sex offenders to change their name. Should we not impose at least the same restrictions, or perhaps an outright ban, on those convicted of murder, because they can continue to be a threat to the families of those they murdered?

Laura Farris: The Home Office explored whether a name-change ban should be extended to murderers and determined that the operational need did not exist. Anyone convicted of murder automatically receives a life sentence. If they are released from prison, they are managed by probation for the remainder of their life and they remain under an obligation to notify probation within 72 hours of any change of their name. Should they fail to do so, they face immediate recall to prison and up to an extra five years behind bars. So far, we feel that that is working adequately.

Vicky Foxcroft: Next month, it will be four years since the publication of the cross-party Youth Violence Commission report, which recommended violence reduction units. However, knife crime and serious violence are soaring across the country. Does the Minister accept that his Government’s severe cuts to police numbers, which mean we are at the bottom of international ranking tables, is leaving our young people and communities without the protection they need?

Chris Philp: Perhaps I have not said often enough in this Chamber that we now have record numbers of police officers across England and Wales, including in the Metropolitan police area, which has the highest number of police officers per capita of any police force in the country. Despite that, I was disappointed to see in the recent figures published that, while across the rest of the country excluding London knife crime went down, on Sadiq Khan’s watch in London it went up.

Marco Longhi: In 2010, the period of service to be eligible for a police long service medal changed from 22 years to 20 years. Sadly, no decision was made to award it retrospectively, meaning that people such as Sedgley resident Guy Hewlett, who served with distinction for 20 years, were excluded. This seems to be fundamentally unfair. Will the Home Secretary agree to look into that unfairness, as a simple remedy could be found to recognise officers who served for the minimum 20 years pre 2010?

Chris Philp: Changes of this nature are generally not applied retrospectively. I will look at that matter again. Normally, when a length-of-service period has changed it applies prospectively rather than retrospectively, but I will look at the issue.

Munira Wilson: Last month, tragically, a young man was stabbed to death at Strawberry Hill station in my constituency. The Minister will know that the key to tackling violent crime is intelligence-led community policing, but despite his previous answer we have seen police officers cut by a third since 2015 and regular abstractions from my constituency into central London. When will the Minister ensure that my constituents have a visible policing presence again so they feel safe?

Chris Philp: I am sure that is a question the hon. Lady will be posing to London’s police and crime commissioner, Sadiq Khan, in the course of the upcoming mayoral election. Thanks to Government funding, the Metropolitan police, in common with England and Wales, now has record police numbers. In the case of the Met there are about 35,000, and in the rest of the country there are about 149,000. In fact, not only does London have the highest per capita funding of any force in the country, it has the highest number of officers per capita of any force in the country, so Sadiq Khan really has no excuse at all.

Duncan Baker: Under the new changes, the minimum income threshold for family visas is being raised incrementally over the next year. However, the only date we have been given so far for that threshold increase is 11 April 2024. For people like my constituents who are planning to get married and are making wedding plans, will the Minister set out when we will have further clarity and an update on the timetable for announcing the future thresholds?

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recognise his desire for certainty. What I can say is that we expect to complete the reform in early 2025, with further staging posts to come. We are, of course, carefully monitoring the implementation through the period of delivering the initial increase. It is right that we go about it in that incremental way to give certainty to people.

Kerry McCarthy: In Bristol, we have sadly seen a number of young people killed by knife crime in the last few weeks. We have a Conservative police and crime commissioner, but unlike the Minister I have no desire to party politicise this. What is he doing to work with the Department for Education to ensure schools are involved in trying to lead the fight against knife crime and young people getting involved, whether as victims or perpetrators?

Chris Philp: The Youth Endowment Fund, led by Jon Yates, has received a £200 million endowment. Its mission is to work with young people—and that includes working with schools in the way that the hon. Lady has described —to identify the most effective interventions that could stop young people getting on to the wrong track, a track that can often have tragic consequences. The youth endowment fund is working with violence reduction units in the 20 police force areas most affected, which are spending £55 million a year, to make the necessary interventions, for instance in schools, to keep our young people safe.

Sarah Atherton: During a recent night out in Wrexham, where I am known as a nurse as well as the Member of Parliament, I was asked to help  police with a man who had collapsed. As I was beginning cardiac resuscitation, the emergency call handler said that the first responder would be with us in an hour and 15 minutes. Fortunately the man was stabilised, but then came the wait. We are well used to the level of service provided by the Welsh Labour Government, but has the Minister made any assessment of how much time is lost by the police attending emergency services?

Chris Philp: I thank my hon. Friend for her work in helping the community: her service has been exemplary. The police will of course help when there is a threat to life or safety or when criminality is involved, but when the emergency is purely medical, for instance when someone is undergoing a mental health crisis, it is for the NHS to respond, and the nationwide roll-out of the Right Care, Right Person model across England—and soon, I hope, across Wales as well—will ensure that a medical response comes when it is needed.

Andrew Bridgen: Yew Lodge hotel in the north-west Leicestershire village of Kegworth continues to accommodate 230 male illegal migrants. How much longer will this blight be inflicted on my constituents by the Government?

Tom Pursglove: The hon. Gentleman makes no mention of the fact that one of the hotels in his constituency is being closed, but he might like to welcome that. He should actually be backing the Government, because we are getting on with closing these hotels. We are tracking ahead of profile in that regard, and we also have a credible plan to reduce the inflow of people crossing the channel by illegal means.

Michael Ellis: In respect of the projection of an antisemitic, terrorist-originating slogan on to the Big Ben tower last week, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner claims that he is powerless. That is utter nonsense, Among other options, the police could use section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which refers to the use of
“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”
with
“intent to cause…harassment, alarm or distress”.
It was behaviour, and it was insulting to Jews and many others. The police could also have reasonably feared a breach of the peace, ordered the removal of the projection machine, and, if there was non-compliance, arrested the individual for obstructing a constable under the Police Act 1996. I have personally prosecuted people for these offences. Police who fail to do their duty can be disciplined for neglect of that duty. Will the Minister act?

Chris Philp: I am sure that all Members were horrified when those political statements, one of which, by implication, called for the destruction of Israel, were beamed on to the Big Ben tower. It was totally unacceptable, and, incidentally, it was also a breach of planning law. I do expect the police to take action; my right hon. and learned Friend, a former Attorney General, has set out a number of grounds on which it could have been taken, and he can rest assured that I have forcefully communicated that to the commissioner already.

Wendy Chamberlain: One of my constituents has been waiting for his asylum substantive interview for well over 18 months. He sat for four hours waiting for an interview to start, but it was  then cancelled with no explanation. There are clearly systemic issues, but can the Department look at this particular case so that it can be resolved?

Tom Pursglove: I know that the hon. Lady will welcome the improvements that we are making in the processing of asylum claims, which are reflected in the way in which the legacy backlog has been dealt with, but if she can give me some specific details, I will certainly ask the team to have a look at it as soon as possible.

Heather Wheeler: May I thank my hon. Friend for not only closing the four-star Newton Park asylum hotel at the beginning of February, but doing so 26 days early? The villagers and the people who use the V3 bus service are extremely grateful for this exceptionally good practice.

Tom Pursglove: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in representing the views of her constituents on this issue. She firmly backs the Government’s plan, which is allowing us to get on with closing hotels such as the one in her constituency, and we will continue to make progress to deliver on our commitments.

Grahame Morris: Banking protocols clearly state that banks should contact the police when they detect fraud. HSBC rightly prevented a vulnerable constituent of mine from conducting a bank transfer to fraudsters in South Africa. However, owing to a failure to notify the police, the fraud continued, and as a result my constituent lost more than £32,000, transferred with the use of Apple gift cards. What advice can the Minister give? What recourse has my constituent to recover the money from HSBC? If it had followed the protocols laid down, appropriate safeguards would have been put in place.

Thomas Tugendhat: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. Fraud is a blight on our society and leaves many people feeling vulnerable and extremely nervous about using online services and the wider economy. I am delighted to say that fraud is already down by 13%, and there is more we are doing on this issue. I urge his constituent to follow the advice of the advertising campaign we are launching, which is Stop! Think Fraud. This is a huge issue on which we are working with police forces around the country, which is why we have 400 new police officers in the national fraud service and the national fraud intelligence unit.

Greg Clark: Last September my private Member’s Bill, which made public sexual harassment a criminal offence, received Royal Assent. Will the Minister say when that Act of Parliament will be commenced and when guidance to police forces will be issued?

Laura Farris: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. It was a pleasure to support his Bill as it went through the House. I cannot say exactly when it will be commenced, but I hope he will be reassured to hear that I had a meeting with officials about commencement earlier this month.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Diana R. Johnson: Last week, the Home Secretary fired the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration after losing confidence in him when he went public with his concerns. As the Home Office failed to publish 15 reports from the inspector despite an agreement that it would publish them within eight weeks of receipt, and with matters of border security at stake, is Mr David Neal actually a whistleblower?

Michael Tomlinson: As the right hon. Lady knows, Mr Neal’s appointment was terminated after he breached the terms of his appointment and lost the trust of the Home Secretary in relation to the reports that she mentions. As she would expect, reports and recommendations are always considered carefully by Ministers, and they will be published in due course.

Rachel Maclean: The slogan that was projected on to Big Ben last Wednesday was extreme and antisemitic. To many, it calls for the destruction of Israel and is seen as a genocidal statement. Decent people around the country—not just Jews—find that appalling. Does the Minister agree that there are criminal offences that could be used for prosecutions, and will he reiterate his calls for the police to prosecute those responsible?

Chris Philp: I share my hon. Friend’s view. As the former Attorney General my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) pointed out a few minutes ago, there were a number of bases on which the police could have acted to prevent that projection. Big Ben is not a canvas for political campaigning, particularly where the slogans are deeply offensive in nature, and that is a view I have made very clear to the commissioner.

Kevin Brennan: Last week, I raised on a point of order the case of my constituent Marte Prenga and her two-year-old daughter, who are stuck overseas, and I was assured that those on the Treasury Bench would pass on to Home Office Ministers the details of their plight. Can I please have a meeting with an Immigration Minister, as this issue is still unresolved?

Tom Pursglove: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that we Ministers are always approachable and accessible, and I would be happy to speak to him about that matter.

Greg Smith: Thames Valley police have consistently set the pace on combating rural crime, and next year’s budget includes provisions to effectively double our rural crime taskforce. Will the Policing Minister join me in congratulating Thames Valley police on all they are doing and, more importantly, ensure that the Home Office learns from their best practice so that it can be applied across the country?

Chris Philp: I pay tribute to Thames Valley’s excellent police and crime commissioner, Matthew Barber, for the work he is doing in combating rural crime and crime more widely. We have funded a rural crime unit within the National Police Chiefs’ Council, but I am happy to look at the excellent work in Thames Valley to ensure that lessons are learned across the country.

Point of Order

Stephen Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members from across the Chamber probably do not need reminding of events last week. On SNP Opposition day, we brought forward a motion seeking to ensure that this House spoke with one voice in favour of ensuring the release of the hostages currently under the control of Hamas, and to ensure that an immediate ceasefire took place to protect civilian life in Gaza. That SNP Opposition day turned into a Labour Opposition day. In that regard, Mr Speaker, you apologised to the SNP and this House. You said:
“I made a mistake: we do make mistakes and I own up to mine. We can have an SO24 to get an immediate debate because the debate is so important to the House.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 872.]
Those were your words, Mr Speaker.
In good faith, my colleagues and I sought to bring forward an SO24 debate, which, among other things, would have sought to end the sale of arms to Israel and call on the Government to use their voice at the United Nations to exercise our view in favour of an immediate ceasefire. It is my understanding that that SO24 application has not been accepted. Can you please advise me on when it will be accepted?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The Standing Order says that I should not give the reasons for any decision regarding a Standing Order No. 24 application. Indeed, properly, we should not be discussing what is a private application to the Speaker. However, given the exceptional circumstances we find ourselves in today, my view is that I ought none the less to explain my reasoning.
In determining whether a matter is proper to be discussed under the Standing Order, I must have regard to two criteria. The first is the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown or could come within the scope of ministerial action. I am satisfied that the matter does relate to areas of ministerial responsibility and falls within the scope of ministerial action. Secondly, in determining whether a matter is urgent, I must have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House in time by other means. The House came to a resolution on this matter on Wednesday last week. Further, I understand that the Government are ready to make a relevant statement tomorrow, so there is a very imminent opportunity for this important matter to come before the House.
That is why I decided that the application for an emergency debate should not proceed. That decision of course does not mean that Members cannot apply for a debate at a later stage, when circumstances might have changed. While the decision is mine to take, I have consulted my Deputies and the Clerks on this matter and we have agreed on this approach.

Situation in the Red Sea

Grant Shapps: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the recent response to Houthi aggression in the Red sea. Thirty years ago, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea came into force. That agreement was ratified by 168 nations and it states explicitly in article 17 that
“ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea”.
Since 19 October the Houthis, aided and abetted by Iran, have launched a ruthless and reckless campaign of attacks against commercial shipping. These attacks are not solely limited to commerce; our military vessels are also in the Houthi crosshairs. The Royal Navy, the US Navy and most recently the French Navy have also been targets. Vessels owned by Chinese and Bulgarian companies and crews from India, Sri Lanka and Syria have been targeted indiscriminately, making a mockery of Houthi claims that this is all about Israel.
From the outset we have been clear that this cannot carry on. Freedom of navigation underpins not only our security but our prosperity. Around 80% of traded goods are carried over the seas, as are about 90% of the goods arriving in the United Kingdom. These necessities on which we depend arrive through a small number of critical waterways, so upholding these precious freedoms is essential for the preservation of life. This Government are determined to help restore the tranquillity of the Red sea. That is why the UK was one of the first members to join the US-led taskforce, Operation Prosperity Guardian, with HMS Richmond now taking over from HMS Diamond to patrol in the Red sea to help protect commercial shipping. It is why we are working in tandem with the US and other allies to reduce the Houthis’ capacity to harm our security and economic interest, to limit their impact on the flow of humanitarian aid, to prevent further regional escalation, and to show Iran in no uncertain terms that we will push back against its destabilising behaviour.
On occasion, in response to specific threats and in line with international law and the principle of self-defence, we have tackled the Houthi threat head-on. Since 11 January, we have conducted a number of precision strikes against Houthi targets. In these previous rounds of strikes, RAF aircraft successfully struck some 32 targets at six different locations, including drone ground control stations as well as other facilities directly involved in the Houthis’ drone and missile attacks on shipping. I am pleased to say that it remains the case that, to date, we have seen no evidence at all to indicate that the RAF strikes caused civilian casualties, and the UN has noted that it has observed no civilian impact arising from the RAF strikes.
Although we have eroded the Houthis’ capacity, their intent to prosecute indiscriminate attacks against innocent vessels remains undiminished. Just last week, MV Rubymar—a Belize-flagged, British-registered cargo vessel—was targeted in the gulf of Aden near the Bab al-Mandab strait. Hit by missiles, the crew were forced to abandon ship. An oil slick, caused entirely by damage sustained in the Houthi attack, now stretches  many miles from the vessel. On Thursday, the British-registered MV Islander was similarly targeted. It was struck by two missiles, resulting in a fire on board. Fortunately, there was no loss of life.
This all comes not long after two US-registered bulk carriers, MV Navis Fortuna and MV Sea Champion, suffered minor damage from Houthi strikes. The attack on Sea Champion highlights the Houthis’ recklessness and near-sightedness, considering that Sea Champion has delivered humanitarian aid to Yemen 11 times in the past five years and was due to unload thousands of tonnes of much needed aid to the Yemeni people through the ports of Aden and Hodeidah. The Houthis’ attack was, quite simply, callous. As near-sighted as these attacks are, they continue to have serious and potentially long-term consequences across the region, as they cut off vital aid to civilians in Yemen and Syria, restrict crucial food imports to Djibouti and threaten significant impacts in Egypt.
Last time I spoke on this issue, I told the House that we will not hesitate to act again in self-defence. We have given the Houthis ample opportunity to de-escalate, but once again, the Houthi zealots have ignored our repeated warnings. As a result, we have once again taken action to defend ourselves against these intolerable attacks. On Saturday night, a Royal Air Force package of four Typhoons, supported by two Voyager tankers, joined US forces in a deliberate strike against Houthi military facilities in Yemen that have been conducting missile and drone attacks on commercial shipping and coalition naval forces in the Bab al-Mandab strait, the southern Red sea and the gulf of Aden. As the House knows, it was the fourth such operation to degrade the Houthi capabilities that are being used to threaten global trade in the Red sea.
Intelligence analysis indicates that the strikes were successful, and that the sites we attacked were being used by the long-range drones that the Houthis use for both reconnaissance and attack missions, including at a former surface-to-air missile battery site several miles north-east of Sana’a. Our aircraft used Paveway IV precision-guided munitions against the drones and their launchers. Assessment continues at this still early stage, but the analysis so far indicates that all eight RAF targets were successfully struck. Three buildings were hit at the Bani military site, and five one-way attack drones are assessed to have been destroyed at the Sana’a military site.
On planning these strikes, as is normal practice for the RAF, operations were carried out meticulously, and consideration was given to minimising any risk of causing civilian casualties. Assessments so far indicate that across the four sets of airstrikes, some 40 military targets have been hit, at seven different Houthi facilities. I pay tribute to the immense skill and tireless dedication of the men and women who made that possible.
Once again, I would like to make it clear that military action is only one aspect of our approach to the crisis in the Red sea. The whole international community has an interest in stopping these attacks, and we continue to work with it to turn that intent into action. The Prime Minister has engaged regional leaders, including the Sultan of Oman, as well as G7 partners. The Foreign Secretary and I have travelled repeatedly to the region in recent weeks to discuss regional security. We are determined to end the illegal flow of arms to the Houthis, using  whatever levers are available, including enduring diplomatic engagement, and determined to continue to intercept illegal weapons and the shipping that helps to feed that supply. We are cutting off the Houthis’ financial resources, to further degrade their capacity to conduct attacks; for example, jointly with the US, we are sanctioning four Houthi leaders, and we will continue to work with the US to cut the flow of Houthi funds.
Despite the best efforts of the Houthis, we also continue to provide humanitarian help to people in the middle east. This year, we will send some £88 million of humanitarian support to Yemen, which will feed 100,000 Yeminis every month. The UK has recently worked closely with our Jordanian partners to airdrop life-saving supplies directly to the Tal al-Hawa Hospital in northern Gaza.
The Houthis could stop this barbaric behaviour any time they want. Instead, they callously choose to continue their reckless acts of aggression, causing harm not just to innocents, but to their own people in Yemen. Until they stop, we will continue to act, but consensus continues to grow that the Houthis’ violations simply cannot continue. That is why, recently, the European Union officially launched its Operation Aspides; Members will know that aspides meant “shield” in ancient Greek. We very much welcome the commitment of our EU partners to joining in the work that has been going on, because no nation should ever be able to threaten the arteries of global commerce.
Thirty years ago, nations of the world all came together to protect innocent passage on our high seas. Thirty years on, the House should be in no doubt whatsoever that we will continue to stand up for those rights, and do all that we can to defend life and limb of sailors everywhere, and to preserve their precious trading routes, on which we all depend. I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

John Healey: I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We accept that the weekend’s airstrikes were legal, limited, and targeted to minimise the risk of civilian casualties. We pay tribute to the total professionalism of all forces personnel involved in the operations, which were conducted to protect shipping in the Red sea and uphold freedom of navigation for all nations. As the Defence Secretary said, the Houthis have been attacking ships of all nations: Chinese, Bulgarian and French ships have been targeted; Danish, Greek and UK ships have been hit; and even aid vessels destined for Yemen have been in the firing line. The UK and US Navies have been forced to shoot down drones in self-defence.
Today, the British Chambers of Commerce reports that more than half of British exporters are being hit by higher costs and delays because of the Houthi attacks. The Houthis are threatening international trade and maritime security, and putting civilian and military lives in serious danger. That is why the UN Security Council last month passed a resolution condemning the Houthis’ actions “in the strongest terms”, and demanding that their attacks cease.
We accept that the military action over the weekend was justified, but was it effective? What were the objectives for these latest strikes? Were they fully met? Were the targets at both Sana’a and Bani destroyed? Ministers have said that the aims of earlier strikes were, first, to deter Houthi attacks and, secondly, to degrade their capabilities, but deterrence does not feature in the weekend’s eight-nation joint statement in support of the strikes, and the Defence Secretary said this afternoon that “Houthi intent remains undiminished”. Has deterring attacks been dropped as one of the Government’s objectives for this military action?
As the Defence Secretary says, this was “the fourth such operation” since 11 January. When will the Government judge this to be a sustained campaign? At what stage do the Government think that Parliament needs a say? It is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to authorise UK military action and account for it to the public in this House. When will we hear from him?
Any military action against the Houthis must be reinforced by a diplomatic drive in the region aimed at stopping the flow of Iranian weapons, cutting off Houthi finances and settling the civil war in Yemen. What more can the Defence Secretary say about the Government’s wider action? We continue to back the Royal Navy’s role in defence of shipping from all nations through Operation Prosperity Guardian. How is that US-led taskforce co-ordinating with Operation Aspides, the European Union’s new naval presence in the Red sea?
Finally, I totally reject Houthi claims that firing missiles and drones at ships from around the world is somehow linked to the conflict in Gaza. Those attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinians, whose agonies are extreme. Last week, Parliament passed Labour’s motion calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. We all want: an end to the fighting, now; no ground offensive in Rafah; all hostages released; and aid to Gaza ramped up greatly. Let us come together this week to work for a ceasefire that is observed by all sides, and that can build into the political process that is needed if we are to secure lasting peace, through a two-state solution, for both Palestine and Israel.

Grant Shapps: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He asked a series of questions, and I will respond directly.
On effectiveness, we believe that this set of attacks was effective, and early reconnaissance shows as much, as I outlined in my statement. As ever, it will take a few days to get a full picture, but we have no reason to think that the action was not entirely successful.
We very much intend our attacks on Houthi infrastructure to be a deterrent. The Houthis think that they can continue their actions; our strikes will ensure that they understand the consequences of those actions and the price to pay for them, but perhaps other people, controlling other waterways, will also understand that the world will not simply stand back and allow those actions to take place.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Prime Minister coming to the House. I gently point out to him that, technically, he is wrong; the Defence Secretary has the legal authority to sign off actions, as part of royal prerogative. Legally, I have responsibility for the attacks,  although, as he rightly points out, the Prime Minister came to the House to give the first two statements on them. As the message in each of those statements is similar and I have legal responsibility, it seems proper and right for me to come to the House and respond to questions. We have had very full statements after each round of attacks.
The shadow Defence Secretary is quite right to say that this sits within a much wider diplomatic context. I went into some detail in my comments, but I am happy to talk more about the wider work that is going on in the region to try to bring to a successful conclusion the wider conflict, which is, in my view—and I think I heard him say in his view—nothing to do with why the Houthis are attacking shipping in the Red sea.
Finally, I would just gently say—although many of the SNP are not here—that to claim that the House passed in full agreement a particular resolution last week is a little bit rich given the circumstances.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

Jeremy Quin: Open source information suggests that the strikes are diminishing the capability of the Houthis to attack international shipping. As that is both welcome and important, will the Secretary of State concur that that is also his assessment? It is welcome that Aspides and Prosperity Guardian are co-ordinating, but does that also include on the interdiction of weapons being smuggled from Iran into Yemen?

Grant Shapps: My right hon. Friend is right that we are degrading—attrited, as they say in military terms—that capability. However, it is still the case that the Houthis are capable of launching attacks. To what extent? Well, the House will come to its own conclusions, but it will note that the gap between the first three rounds of attacks was relatively short, and that the gap between that and this fourth round has been longer. Again, we will wait to see what the response is.
On interdictions: yes, we will certainly continue to try to ensure that Iran is not resupplying. The single best message to go out from this House is that Iran should stop that activity. It is worth noting that it has been only Britain and the US that have been doing interdictions in the past few years—and, of course, we will continue to do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martin Docherty: First, let me thank the Secretary of State for due sight of his statement. I think that, as an opposition party, we would give it our tentative support. What the shadow Defence Secretary said about possible mission creep does give us concern, but I am sure that it is the role of the Opposition to keep asking those questions.
The Secretary of State knows that my last question regarding this issue was on the position of the People’s Republic of China. Until recently, exports between Europe and China were in excess of £400 billion a year, and there is no doubt that they will suffer as a result of the extended time that it takes to travel between China and Europe, but what beggars belief is China’s utter silence in relation to what is going on—notably, given that it has a military naval capacity in Djibouti.
The Secretary of State and I will disagree on the issue of Gaza. If we had secured a real vote last week, we would probably have seen that recorded formally in the House. Gerald M. Feierstein, the former US diplomat, has said that
“the Houthis’ effort to insert themselves into the Gaza conflict”
is aimed at
“strengthening their support base in the country and cementing their movement more firmly in the… ‘axis of resistance’”.
I wonder whether, like me, the Secretary of State is concerned that we are not only strengthening that axis of resistance but, with illicit Chinese and Russian support, now broadening it in the Red sea.

Grant Shapps: I thank the hon. Member for his—as he has described it—tentative support. I have noted that the House has been largely unified on this issue during the past four statements, following previous attacks. He asks about the mission creep situation. I hope he feels reassured by the concept that we have waited longer, in part because the Houthis’ capabilities have been damaged, so that there is a longer gap and we do not see this thing speeding up. We have no intention or desire to see it increase, but we will act if there continue to be attacks on commercial and naval shipping.
The hon. Member asks about China and Russia and I have to say that I agree; it is important that countries that are impacted by this—the entire world, but perhaps China in particular—do speak up. We would welcome China being more vocal about the situation. As I mentioned in my comments, a Chinese vessel has been attacked, so this is of direct concern to the country. I call on China and, of course, Russia—for what it is worth—to be more vocal on these issues.
Lastly, I just do not accept this Gaza-Houthi connection. I remind the House that the Houthis were against Hamas until 2015, and now they arrive on the scene and pretend to support them. They are opportunist thugs taking advantage of the situation and of people’s lives and misery—not just in Gaza but in Yemen—and they should stop and desist immediately.

Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State will recall that, in handling this topic on 5 February, he strongly endorsed the suggestion that a lot of this trouble in the middle east was linked to tactics to divert from the war in Ukraine. Given that the route from what is happening in Ukraine to what is happening in the middle east is via Russia and Iran, is he satisfied that there is no inconsistency between the tough line being taken by the Ministry of Defence against the Houthis and the soft line being taken by the Foreign Office against their Iranian sponsors?

Grant Shapps: I somewhat reject that characterisation. To be absolutely clear, we are very much of the view that Iran is responsible; it funds, trains and provides equipment to the Houthis and many other Iranian-sponsored proxies in the region. It is also the case that it has probably lost control of some of them. It is important that we deliver those messages in many different ways to the Iranians. I have seen the read-outs of the ways they have been delivered, including directly, by the Foreign Secretary—and they were anything but weak.

Derek Twigg: I put to the Secretary of State a similar question to the one that I put to the Prime Minister on 23 January: of course we want a diplomatic solution—any ramping up of a military solution has its consequences—but for how many more months are the Secretary of State and the Government going to allow this to continue? Do the Government and the allies have a plan B?

Grant Shapps: Of course, the whole world is working on the overall context of the middle east. I know the hon. Gentleman will have seen the reports over the weekend about the discussions taking place in relation to the hostages. We want a comprehensive settlement; the Government’s policy is, of course, a two-state solution. The middle east could be normalised in many ways, including through Saudi normalisation with Israel, as part of that broader package; the Government are working proactively on this. As I said, I am conscious that we should not link these thuggish pirates—

Derek Twigg: indicated dissent.

Grant Shapps: I am not saying the hon. Gentleman does that, but I am keen that we do not see the two issues as inextricably linked. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to do that. We are working very hard on the wider solution.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome this statement and the Defence Secretary’s leadership. It is clear that the Houthi threat may last months, and it is right that Britain plays our role in protecting international shipping, but Typhoons are tasked from Cyprus only because our surface fleet cannot hit targets at range on land. I know the Defence Secretary is looking at a new vertical launch system to rectify that, but does he agree that an urgent operational requirement to introduce guided multiple launch rocket systems with the new precision-strike missile would allow our Royal Navy, already tasked to the Red sea, to help eliminate the Houthi threat?

Grant Shapps: There are always good reasons to introduce new capabilities. In fact, I was recently down on HMS Somerset at Devonport, where a system is being fitted and trialled. It is not the case, as it is sometimes characterised, that we are using Typhoons because we do not have another option; our first preference is to work in this way for a range of reasons that I cannot enter into at the Dispatch Box. It is worth noting that when the US carried out actions in Iraq and Syria, its planes flew all the way from the United States, and I am not aware of anybody saying that that was because it did not have facilities closer to hand. We are using the correct facilities for the particular operation, notwithstanding the fact that it is always nice to have new facilities.

Kevan Jones: I agree with the Secretary of State that we must always think about our servicemen and women who carry out these tasks. As a former Defence Minister, it is news to me that it is up to the Defence Secretary to agree to any strikes, but perhaps this Defence Secretary has more power than his predecessors.
What is the policy and strategy behind this set of circumstances? I and a number of other Defence Committee members met the Defence Minister of Italy a few weeks ago in Rome. Italy is deploying to the region. How is it that this is now a US and UK-led operation? What are we doing to build alliances with Italy and other European nations that have an interest in doing so? As my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) asked, what ultimately is plan B and the long-term endgame?

Grant Shapps: I will avoid getting into the constitutional position of how that authority runs. It would be inconceivable to do that without the Prime Minister, but it is technically the case that the royal prerogative runs to the Defence Secretary, for what it is worth.
I am very familiar with my friend Minister Crosetto, whom the right hon. Gentleman met in Rome. The Italians have, as he knows, opted to join Aspides, the EU operation. We will work closely with our European friends and allies to ensure that that interacts properly with the wider Prosperity Guardian and the direct actions that we are taking. Of course, we welcome action from other friends and allies in that regard.

Michael Fabricant: I was very interested to hear the Secretary of State say that it is just the United Kingdom and the United States doing the interdiction to ensure that there is no rearmament of the Houthis, but what assessment has he made of the sources of that rearmament? What percentage does he think comes from Iran, through Syria, or through other agents?

Grant Shapps: We are pretty certain that it all originates in Iran—[Interruption.] Actually, I have just been informed by my Parliamentary Private Secretary that actually there was also a French interdiction of some weapons in 2023, so let me put that correction on the record. To answer the question, I believe that it all originates from Iran. Which routes it takes in is another matter, but much of it comes ultimately by sea, and we continue to work proactively to ensure that we prevent those shipments whenever we can.

Ben Bradshaw: Will the Secretary of State answer the question asked by the shadow Defence Secretary, which he avoided earlier: now that this appears to be sustained operation, might a vote in this House be appropriate?

Grant Shapps: We will continue to gauge the view of the House on these matters. I have noted that each party’s representative has—from tentatively to fully—supported these measured responses. If the rapidity or severity of the attacks increased, for example, my judgment at the moment would be that it is possible to read the mood of the House, but we will keep that under review and ensure that we continually come back to the House to provide defence intelligence briefings to Members who require them.

Vicky Ford: According to a survey released by the British Chambers of Commerce, over half of British retailers and exporters have been impacted by the disruption in the Red sea, which is causing logistics delays, pushing up costs, and risking higher prices and  fewer choices in British shops and elsewhere. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our military action is consistent with the UK’s overarching aim of de-escalating tensions and restoring stability in the Red sea?

Grant Shapps: Yes, I can absolutely provide that reassurance. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the situation is already having a cost for British consumers. As I mentioned in my comments, globally about 80% of goods move by sea; for the United Kingdom, it is about 90%, given that we are an island. It is very important therefore to show, both for the purposes of deterrence and to weaken the Houthis’ ability to attack shipping, that we mean business when we say that this cannot carry on.

Apsana Begum: After four separate strikes in seven weeks, this appears to be a prolonged military campaign, so I ask the Minister again, as I did on 5 February: what is the long-term strategy, and how does this relate to the ongoing precarious situation in Yemen itself? If the Government’s plan is to sustain military action, will he speak to the Prime Minister to ensure that Parliament accordingly has a vote or a say, which is only right?

Grant Shapps: I hope the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming action against the Houthis, who have attacked a ship that—as I mentioned—has provided aid to the people of Yemen on multiple occasions. I know that she does not make this mistake, but some people think that the Houthis are somehow the Yemeni authorities. They are not; they are not the Government. They are destroying that country through their actions, and are actually preventing aid from getting to the people of Yemen, so it is absolutely right that we take this action.
To assure the hon. Lady, the previous three attacks were seven days apart or so; it has been a longer period this time. We have been able to wait longer, perhaps because the Houthis have fewer options to attack shipping, but I stress that we will continue if they carry on attacking shipping. The simplest thing for all of us to do is to send a clear, united message to the Houthis that they must stop attacking innocent shipping.

James Morris: The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that military action is necessary but not sufficient to deal with the long-term problem of the Houthis. He has mentioned the necessity of tackling financing and the illegal shipping of weapons, but global shipping is peculiarly vulnerable to cyber-attack. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the UK’s cyber-capabilities are shared with our international partners to protect our global shipping interests?

Grant Shapps: There are essentially two forms of warfare that my hon. Friend is pointing to: one is direct cyber-attack and the other is the use of electronic warfare to cause particular outcomes. I am afraid that we have seen a lot of that, particularly in the theatre in Ukraine, and we are very conscious of the way it is being used in the Red sea region as well. We will continue to do all we can to help through the Prosperity Guardian element of this operation, and to make sure that we are a step ahead of those who would, through preference, destroy the ability for world trade and good passage through open seas to take place.

Sammy Wilson: I assure the Minister that he has the full—not tentative—support of DUP Members for the actions he has taken, because as he has pointed out, what is happening will affect businesses and consumers in the UK through inflation and the inability to get supplies. However, those effects are not limited to the UK; almost every European nation relies on those shipping lanes being kept open. Why is it that we are doing the heavy lifting when it comes to attacking the Houthis, and other nations are not joining in?

Grant Shapps: First, I am very grateful for the support of the right hon. Gentleman’s party. Secondly, two factors have to be in play in order to take action: the will to do it and the capability to do it. Quite a large number of nations are involved, either through Prosperity Guardian or direct support for the military action, which includes intelligence officers and other means of assistance—we are receiving support from a whole range of people. We now also have Operation Aspides, which the Europeans are launching. We look forward to seeing what they bring to this action, but I stress that it is our capability and willingness combined that means that the United Kingdom is able and willing to act when perhaps others are not.

Michael Ellis: Has my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary considered engaging with the currently unrecognised country of Somaliland? I visited it recently, as the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will show. As it has a border with the gulf of Aden, its port at Berbera might be useful to His Majesty’s Government.

Grant Shapps: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is a big fan of Somaliland. I have visited it myself in the past, and I know that in a difficult environment, they do a very good job—administratively and otherwise —of trying to run their Government. I will take his comments away and confer with the Foreign Secretary.

Alison Thewliss: I appreciate that the Secretary of State has come to the House on several occasions to give an update on this situation, and that further actions continue to be taken to avoid the Houthis disrupting Red sea shipping. The difficulty is that they appear not to be deterred by what the Government are throwing at them, following on from many years of being undeterred by attacks on them from the Saudi Government. In fact, they are using this as part of their propaganda machine against the west. So can I ask the Secretary of State: how does he see this ending?

Grant Shapps: I would say two things to the hon. Lady. First, as I have tried to stress before, I do think that this operation is having an impact. We have seen longer periods between attacks, and we have seen the Houthis’ abilities attrited, so they have fewer capabilities. That is certainly the case.
The second thing I would say—perhaps I should have said it sooner—in answer to what might bring this to an end is that the Houthis do want to get the peace deal they have in place with the Saudis ratified by the United Nations, which clearly will not ratify a peace deal between the two parties until they stop shooting at international shipping. I do think that there is an endgame in the Saudi-Houthi peace deal being signed off by the United  Nations, but the onus remains on the Houthis to stop shooting at international shipping and disrupting its flow before they can get that and, indeed, the financial improvement to their own situation that will come from the deal being signed.

Alexander Stafford: Al-Jazeera has reported that, according to its numbers, 37,000 Houthis have been recruited since the start of the airstrikes, and they are using the airstrikes as a recruiting tool. Al-Jazeera believes that this is for a push on Ma’rib, which is full of natural resources. As we know, Ma’rib became a world heritage site in 2023. It is home to the ancient kingdom of Sheba, or Saba’, and also of the famous dam, which is mentioned in the Koran. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that that world heritage site is protected, and if the Houthis were to move into that area, would they step in to stop them destroying these essential historical and religious sites?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and if he does not mind, I will confer with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this issue. On the membership point, the Houthis are made up of a ragtag of people who are often quite desperate and those who are led into a particular way of life with the Houthis. We want to dismantle that, and the best way to do it is through the peace deal that has been agreed, but that cannot be enacted by the UN until they stop firing on commercial shipping. We would like to see that situation unwound. I will take his other point away and come back to him.

Patrick Grady: On 6 February —20 days ago—I tabled written question 13372, asking
“for what reason Israeli military planes have used UK airports on each occasion since 7 October 2023.”
That may or may not be relevant to this statement, but I do not know, because I have not yet received an answer. Can the Secretary of State either answer the question now, or tell me when I will receive a written answer?

Grant Shapps: I will certainly look into that for the hon. Member, but I would have thought that Israel uses UK airports for the purposes of flying El Al and other airlines to this country.

Greg Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I support the necessary actions of self-defence to secure freedom of navigation in the Red sea. However, to keep the whole country on the same page and to understand the importance of this, I note that while the purpose of the actions is first and foremost to protect the people—the seafarers and the military personnel—on those vessels, the economic impact globally is huge, as has been referenced. Businesses are reporting to me a threefold or fourfold increase in shipping costs, which of course we will all pay for at the tills. In conjunction with the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade, has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the magnitude of the figure that the challenge to freedom of navigation in the Red sea is causing to our economy and the global economy?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this has a cost not just to business or industry, but to households in this country. It will come straight through  to the bill for the weekly shop, which is why it is so important that we do not allow these attacks to go unchallenged and that we make sure we degrade the ability for them take place. He asked about the ongoing assessments by the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury, and provided some data from his own knowledge about the increased shipping costs. Shipping is typically not an enormous part of the cost of each individual item people buy in the supermarket, but of course over a period time, that will have a negative impact, which is why it is important to make it clear that freedom of navigation is sacrosanct and that we will always take action if it is affected in any way, shape or form.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I very much support what he is doing and his strength of character and purpose, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we are very much on the same page. With joint strikes with our allies ongoing, it is clear that support for the Houthis is still making its way from the axis of evil to enable them to carry on with persistent threats and attacks. The Houthis continue their attacks, so what discussions have taken place with our allies to ascertain what the next steps to secure the route will be? How quickly can those steps be taken to secure the sea routes and trade for all countries across the world?

Grant Shapps: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his party’s support on this. He will be interested to hear that I had extensive discussions last week both at NATO in Brussels and at the Munich security conference on exactly the issues he has raised. A broad range of international discussion is going on, and we all want to see the Houthis stop and to have a wider settlement with Saudi. There is no excuse that is plausible for the action being taken, and common sense would say that China, and even Russia, would be piling on the pressure to do that. We will carry on working internationally with our partners, and with those in the P5, to try to ensure that happens.

Patrick Grady: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The written question I referred to was about Israeli military aircraft—I think the Secretary of State might have misunderstood, or I might not have spoken clearly. I would appreciate an answer to that written question as soon as he can give it.

Lindsay Hoyle: Secretary of State?

Grant Shapps: I shall ensure that that answer is forthcoming.

Post Office Horizon:  Compensation and Legislation

Kevin Hollinrake: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement to update the House on the progress that has been made to support victims of the Horizon scandal.
Since this terrible miscarriage of justice was first exposed, the Government have been working tirelessly to put matters right for postmasters. We have set up an independent inquiry and funded various redress schemes that we have continuously improved to speed up compensation for all affected. That work has been taking place for many months, and long before ITV aired the excellent programme “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”. The work included our announcement last autumn of the optional £600,000 fixed-sum award for those who have been wrongfully convicted. We continue to develop our response to the scandal, and on Thursday I made a written statement detailing the way that we plan to legislate to overturn Horizon-related convictions en masse. We expect to introduce that legislation as soon as possible next month.
My statement set out that the new legislation will quash all convictions that are identified as being in scope, using clear and objective criteria on the face of the Bill. Convictions will be quashed at the point of commencement, without the need for people to apply to have their convictions overturned. The criteria will cover the prosecutors, extending to prosecutions undertaken by Post Office Ltd and the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as offence types, ensuring that those align with offences known to have been prosecuted by the Post Office. That means that only relevant offences such as theft and false accounting will be in scope. On offence dates, a set timeframe will ensure that convictions are quashed only where the offence took place during the period when the Horizon system and its pilots were in operation. The criteria will also cover the contractual or other relationship of the convicted individual to Post Office Ltd, so that only sub-postmasters, their employees, officers or family members, or direct employees of the Post Office will be within the defined class of convictions to be quashed. On the use of the Horizon system at the date of the offence, the convicted person will need to have been working, including in a voluntary capacity, in a post office that was using Horizon system software—including any relevant pilot schemes—at the time that the behaviour constituting the offence occurred.
Such legislation is unprecedented and constitutionally sensitive, but this scandal is unprecedented too. I am clear that this legislation does not set a precedent for the future, and nor is it a reflection on the actions of the courts and the judiciary, who have dealt swiftly with the cases before them. However, we are clear that the scale and circumstances of the miscarriage of justice demand an exceptional response. We are also receiving invaluable support from the Horizon compensation advisory board in this effort. Once again, I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and his colleagues on the board, including Lord Arbuthnot. The board met on Thursday. We were joined by Sir Gary Hickinbottom and Sir Ross Cranston, who will be the final arbiters of claims in the overturned convictions  and GLO schemes respectively. At the meeting, the board strongly supported the proposals in my written statement for legislating to overturn convictions. They also proposed sensible measures to accelerate compensation for those impacted.
One of the biggest constraints on the speed of redress for those who choose to take the full assessment route is that it takes time for claimants and their representatives to gather evidence and develop their claims. To encourage early submission of claims, once the Post Office receives a full claim from someone with an overturned conviction, it will forthwith top up their interim redress to £450,000. Of course, if they have opted for our £600,000 fixed-sum award, they will get that instead. Similarly, on the GLO scheme, where claims are typically smaller, we have implemented fixed-sum award offers of £75,000, helping claimants to move on with their lives. Those who are not satisfied with this fixed offer can continue to submit larger claims, and they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We have committed to provide offers on a fully completed claim within 40 working days in 90% of cases. If initial GLO offers are not accepted and independent facilitation is then entered, we shall forthwith pay postmasters 80% of our initial offer, to help ensure that they do not face hardship while those discussions are completed.
We have always been clear that our first offers of compensation should be full and fair. It is early days, but the numbers suggest that in the GLO scheme we are achieving that. More than 70% of our offers in that scheme are accepted by postmasters without reference to the independent panel. We will also ensure that postmasters are kept regularly up to date with the progress of their claims.
The advisory board has made a number of other helpful proposals. Those are set out in the report of the meeting, which my Department is publishing today. I have undertaken to give them serious consideration. I will advise the House when we reach decisions about those proposals, and I will doubtless return again with further updates as part of our unceasing determination to deliver justice for everyone caught up in this long-running and tragic scandal. I commend this statement to the House.

Roger Gale: I call the Opposition spokesperson.

Rushanara Ali: May I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement? The Horizon scandal has rightly left the public outraged by the scale and shocking details of the injustice that has been committed. The scandal is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history. It has robbed innocent people of their livelihoods, their liberty and, sadly, in numerous cases, their lives. More than 20 years on, the victims and their families are still suffering the consequences of the trauma of all that they have been put through. Until recently, there has been little progress and delays at every turn, which has caused even further distress.
Victims and their families have been trapped in a nightmare for too long. We all want to see the exoneration of all the remaining convictions, and the delivery of rightful compensation to all those affected sub-postmasters  as quickly as possible. On the Opposition Benches, the Labour party has made it clear that we want to see a swift and comprehensive resolution to this insidious injustice, and we are committed to working with the Government to ensure that happens.
I recognise the important work that the Minister has done, both on the Back Benches and in his current role. The unprecedented scale of the legal work being carried out will be possible only with cross-party working and cross-party support. I want to take the opportunity to thank the advisory board for its tireless work in supporting the Government in getting this right, as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the other House.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to progressing the legislation. Labour is committed to working with the Government to deliver rightful exonerations, but I know that many Members will have had questions following last Thursday’s written ministerial statement, so I welcome the Minister returning to the House. I have a series of questions to pose to him. First, in the light of what he has said today, what further details can we expect on the legislation being tabled? Will he further clarify why convictions prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions are excluded from the legislation and what steps he will take to get the Department to deliver exonerations as soon as possible?
The Minister’s proposals set a very difficult precedent, as he said, on the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary. Will he outline what conversations he has had with the Lord Chancellor about this matter and his views on it, which might alleviate some people’s continued concerns?
As the Minister mentioned, there are also issues around precedent that could be exploited in the future for less appropriate purposes. Although I appreciate the assurances that he has provided on that, it would be helpful to understand and get clarification on what specific safeguards will be put in place to avoid this becoming a precedent. The cross-party nature of this work is critical to ensure that happens. However, some people are asking whether he considers that this particular example could be relevant in the future for other worthy causes.
May I also ask the Minister about the pre-Horizon system, Capture? Will he confirm whether prosecutions were made using Capture data and whether any sub-postmasters lost money due to Capture failings? If so, will he commit to those convictions being in the scope of the legislation and compensation schemes?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Member for her collaborative comments. I am keen to work with her going forward, as we have every step of the way on this issue. I do not accept that we have made little progress. Let us be clear that 78% of all full claims that have been submitted have been settled—that is 2,700 claims that have been settled. Nor do I accept that there have been delays at every turn. That is not a correct characterisation of the situation.
With regard to our next steps, as I said, we expect the legislation to be tabled next month, which is as quickly as possible. I am working on this on very much a daily basis. On the differences between Post Office and CPS cases—those we are seeking to overturn with this legislation—and DWP cases, I think it is fair to say  there was a different standard of evidence. Those DWP cases relied on evidence independent of Horizon such as the surveillance of suspects, collation and examination of cashed orders from stolen benefit books and girocheques, handwriting comparisons and witness statements. Those cases were very much not simply relying on Horizon evidence.
My engagement with the Lord Chancellor has been extensive, and our engagement with other stakeholders—including the hon. Member’s shadow Front-Bench colleagues—has also been extensive. We decided that was the right thing to do. Having said that, these are unprecedented steps. I think that again speaks to the fact that we are keen to make as much progress as possible, rather than as little.
The hon. Lady mentioned safeguards. The standard of evidence is critical to get to this point. It is fair to say that the trailblazing 555, who successfully took their case to the courts in the first place, set a high bar for anyone to emulate or replicate. We will be clear in the legislation that convictions will be overturned based on objective criteria, as another way to deal with this. That speaks to the hon. Lady’s last point on Capture, which I am very aware of and I have discussed with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on several occasions, including immediately prior to this statement. We need to ensure that we have the right evidence base. I am happy to continue the dialogue on that, but it is important that we do not include cohorts where we do not have the evidence base, as we have for the cohorts that we have set out—where the CPS and the Post Office prosecuted cases. We are taking very serious measures to overturn the convictions. We should never resort to this kind of approach lightly.

John Redwood: Will the Minister take UK Government Investments out of its role of controlling and supervising the Post Office? It has allowed these gross injustices to go on for too long, allowed the Post Office senior managers to rack up huge losses of £1,391 million to last March, with more to come this year, and given the executives bonuses for losing us that much money. It has left the Government with a great financial black hole. Would it not be better to change the Post Office management, to have it report directly to the Minister, and to make its No. 1 task giving justice to the sub-postmasters?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He and I have had serious conversations about the future of the Post Office, which I am keen to continue to engage on. The current UKGI representative who sits on the Post Office board is Lorna Gratton, for whom I have a great deal of time and respect. Clearly it is important that the inquiry does its work to determine who did what in the past. As we look to the future, there are different opinions on how the Post Office should be governed. I am happy to keep those discussions ongoing with my right hon. Friend.

Marion Fellows: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Under successive Labour, Tory and Liberal Ministers, Post Office Ltd has overseen the largest miscarriage of justice in UK history. The Horizon scandal is  just appalling. Unusually, both the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments have written to the UK Government, calling on them to rule on devolved affairs. It is vital that the UK Government work to ensure that exonerations in Scotland and Northern Ireland take place at the same time as those in England and Wales. [Interruption.] I do not find this amusing at all, but obviously the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) does.

Amy Callaghan: Utterly shameful.

Roger Gale: Order.

Marion Fellows: The devolved Governments have no power or locus in the UK Post Office, so we really need to get this together. When will the legislation for both the exoneration and the redress schemes be published? The Scottish and Northern Irish Governments have written to ask for UK-wide legislation. We need the UK Government to act, because otherwise we cannot guarantee simultaneous legislation that is compatible and comparable with UK Government schemes. When will there be a response to the Scottish Government? This is really important.
There were reports yesterday that Post Office Ltd has only now brought in external investigators to investigate its internal investigators. Does that not seem quite late to the Minister? Why was that not done earlier? Is it just to avoid the appearance of continued cover-ups in Post Office Ltd?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Lady for her work and for her points, including on the devolved issues around Scotland and Northern Ireland which she is right to raise. We considered that very carefully. When we originally set out to legislate, we were very clear that it would be for England and Wales only, but that we would work with our counterparts in the other parts of the United Kingdom on what they might do. Indeed, we have responded to them already. We met them last week before we announced the legislation in this statement to the House. We decided to legislate for England and Wales only, because justice is a devolved matter. As she said, the Post Office is UK-wide, but justice is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and of course they have different legal systems in those areas and different prosecutors. Taking action to interfere with the independent judiciary is a very, very serious thing to do, of course, but we believe that it is the right way. We are working closely with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure they understand our legal approach and we are very happy to assist with any legislation they may seek to undertake in their own Parliaments.
On redress, there is a single UK-wide scheme, so once somebody’s conviction is overturned they can access redress in exactly the same way as anybody in England and Wales. On the investigation or investigators, that is initially a matter for the Post Office but also for the inquiry to see what happened in the past. There is little point in the huge expense of setting up a public inquiry, as Members called for, and then seeking to do the inquiry’s work ourselves. We need to see exactly what the inquiry makes of that and of many other issues.

Mark Pawsey: I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for the firm and consistent approach the Government are taking to getting justice for the affected sub-postmasters. We heard earlier about precedent. The Minister will know that many of us have concerns about precedent in bringing forward special legislation in this case, although we know, of course, that many hundreds of innocent sub-postmasters have suffered the most serious miscarriage of justice. The Minister just said that the scale and circumstances of the Post Office’s actions in this case rightly require an exceptional response. Will he set out how using that mechanism will ensure that the people we are bothered about, the sub-postmasters, benefit speedily and accurately from those measures?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my hon. Friend for his point and for his work on the Select Committee. He is right that we will take those steps very carefully and very much as a last resort. He concluded his question on exactly the right point. This is about sub-postmasters and the speed of overturning those convictions: the speed to justice. We looked at doing that through other means, but did not feel that they would achieve the same level of speed. He may be aware that hundreds of people have passed away—there was a report in the newspapers over the weekend—waiting for compensation and justice. That is just not acceptable. We made the difficult decision to deal with this situation in this particular way. As we have often described it, this is the least-worst option but it is still the right option.

Roger Gale: I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

Liam Byrne: May I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for the speed and attention he is paying to this issue? The bottom line, however, is that redress is too slow and the offers are too low. Papers that the Select Committee is publishing this afternoon show that at the core of the problem is a toxic culture of disbelief of sub-postmasters, which still persists at the top of the Post Office. Indeed, the board minutes for March last year show that board members lamented that the board was tired and constantly distracted by historical issues and short-term crises. I am afraid that that is not good enough when only 40% of the allocated budget for the Horizon scheme has been paid out and only 4% of the budget for the overturned conviction scheme has been paid out. When the Minister brings forward his Bill, will he make sure that the Post Office is now taken out of every single one of the compensation schemes, and that a hardwired instruction to deliver, with a fixed, legally binding timetable to deliver compensation agreements, is written on the face of the Bill?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points, his kind words earlier, and his work on this matter. I know that he will be chairing a Select Committee session on it tomorrow, and I look forward to his recommendations.
I agree that compensation has been delivered too slowly. We are trying to accelerate its delivery every single day, and we are, I think, doing good work with the advisory board to ensure that that happens. I do not accept that the offers are too low, although I am not  saying that there are no exceptions; no compensation scheme will be 100% perfect. In respect of the GLO scheme, for example, 58 full claims have been submitted and 41 have been accepted without reference to the next stage of the process, involving the independent panel, which would seem to indicate that the offers that have been made are fair. Of course people will not take my word for it—they will only accept it when those cases have been resolved—and there are bound to be high-profile cases, as indeed there have been, in which people say that the offers are too low. However, we are determined to ensure that everyone has full compensation that is also fair to the individual, fair to the other individuals within the schemes and, of course, fair to the taxpayer.
As for the people who are running the scheme, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Horizon shortfall scheme was set up as a scheme run by the Post Office, with an independent panel including eminent KCs such as Lord Garnier. I have met its members, as has the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and we have confidence in it. Nevertheless, we are looking at recommendations from the advisory board for an independent appeal process. The GLO scheme is independent of the Post Office; it is within our Department, and we are working to ensure that the offers are fair. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, we are considering bringing the overturned conviction scheme back in-house, and we will have more to say about that in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned 40% of the budget. We set a maximum budget of £1 billion—not a cap, but a maximum budget at this point. Part of the reason why only 4% of overturned convictions claims have been settled is the fact that the convictions have not in fact been overturned, which is why we are legislating in this way. Once those hundreds of convictions have been overturned, en masse, people will have access to rapid compensation via either the fixed-sum award, whereby compensation takes only days, or the full-assessment route, which takes longer.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a legally binding route, and of course we will look at all the various suggestions that are made. We have just legislated to extend the timescale for GLO compensation because we did not want to be bound by an arbitrary date, and I think he supported our legislation. I would therefore caution him against suggesting a legally binding date, because not everything is in our gift, in terms of when we receive a claim and how fast it can then be processed.

Priti Patel: The Minister will be aware from my correspondence of the case of my constituent Mr Graham Ward—one of the 555 in the GLO. He has been in touch with me in the last week, and I think it fair to say that he has expressed his deep frustration about the processes that the House is currently discussing in respect of redress and access to compensation. The £75,000 fixed-sum offer is less than the impact that he has experienced. In his statement, the Minister referred to the 40-day process that people might wish to go through rather than accepting the lump sum. May I suggest to him that that should be looked into? Graham is having to undergo medical assessments and various doctors’ appointments, and all this is a terrible ordeal that continues for him, but so many others have also been part of this. I urge the Minister to bring a human element to his considerations, and to recognise that £75,000 does not even scratch the surface when  someone has lost their business, their livelihood, the goodwill and their reputation. That is what we must restore sooner rather than later.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my right hon. Friend for her constant correspondence and engagement with Mr Ward. I wrote to her recently about the case, and asked to be kept updated on his progress.
The £75,000 is one of two routes that people can take. If they feel that their claim is below £75,000, they do not have to submit any evidence and can simply opt for the £75,000, take that money off the table, and move on with their lives. If they feel that their claim is significantly higher than that, they can opt for the full-assessment route, which inevitably takes more time because assessing someone’s loss is a complex process. The submission of a claim for financial loss will require forensic accountants on behalf of the claimant, and other assessments of the type that my right hon. Friend mentioned will also be needed. All the compensation schemes with which I have been involved during my time in this place have been complicated, but we are trying to simplify this one. Only last week we discussed with the advisory board measures to accelerate the process, but the fundamental principle is that claimants such as Mr Ward should always be given the benefit of the doubt.

Kevan Jones: I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon compensation board, and I thank the Minister for his statement. It is welcome to see him, rather than the Secretary of State, present today’s statement. I welcome the approach that the Government are taking on overturned convictions, but I note that it includes pilots.
I have given evidence to the Minister and the public inquiry about the Capture system. Those affected need to be included in any overturned convictions and to get compensation. I am slowly getting the evidence out of the Post Office and from individual cases, and it comes back to a point that the Chair of the Select Committee just made about the role of the Post Office. The Minister wrote a letter at the weekend to the Select Committee, saying that the culture at the Post Office has changed, but it clearly has not; the toxic culture is still there. Until the Post Office is taken out of this process altogether and forced to regurgitate the information, nothing will change. The Minister knows that one of the advisory board’s recommendations is to do exactly that. Until we do it, postmasters will not have any faith in the process.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his tireless work over the years and, indeed, for his work in recent months on the advisory board. It is hugely important for accelerating this process.
We have discussed Capture on a number of occasions. It is important that we have the right body of evidence on that, and I am keen to work with the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that we do. Clearly, intervening in matters that were independently decided by the courts is a step we take very rarely—it is unprecedented in this context—but I am happy to discuss that further with him and to help him seek evidence from the Post Office where he needs more evidence on this issue. We discussed it last week, and I am keen to make sure that we have the process running as independently as possible.
I can assure colleagues, any claimants out there and the wider public that every single process—not least the GLO scheme and the overturned convictions scheme—has an independent reviewer. It is Sir Gary Hickinbottom for the overturned convictions scheme and Sir Ross Cranston for the GLO scheme. These are very highly regarded individuals, who will make sure that postmasters who come forward are fairly treated and get the redress they deserve.

Siobhan Baillie: I welcome the care that has been taken to set out how extraordinary this circumstance is and the fact that we are not leading ourselves into setting any precedents. I also welcome scrutiny of the Bill as it comes forward.
On compensation, it is right that evidence is checked and that we are thorough, but I am concerned that the Government’s payment clock will start to run only when they are satisfied that they have all the information on individual cases. It is very difficult for some postmasters to collate documents covering 20 years, some of which have been destroyed or damaged. This is causing a lot of stress, in a similar way to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) described. Will the Minister explain the Government’s position regarding evidence? Given the process of trying to speed up the payments, are we able to get to the point at which we are taking a view on claims, so that we can kickstart the 40-day process and get the money out the door?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement with this issue and for her work on behalf of her constituent, whose case I am very aware of. Yes, we absolutely should be taking a view where evidence is impossible to obtain. Of course, it is fair to request certain bits of information to support a claim, but where such information is not available because it pertains to 20 or 25 years ago, it would be unreasonable to expect that as the basis for a claim. As I said earlier, where there is an absence of evidence but a broader claim that is compelling, there is no doubt that the claimant should get the benefit of the doubt, and I am very keen to make sure that her constituent gets compensation as quickly as possible.

Andy McDonald: I thank the Minister and his predecessor for their work on this. I know that he has been paying a lot of attention to it. On the issue of full and fair compensation, may I express a worry about the £600,000 option? It has been said that this is a complicated process, but it does not have to be. Schedules of past and future loss are regular events when calculating these matters, and if ever there were a case for aggravated and exemplary damages, surely this is it. My fear is that people who are up against time limits and perhaps getting older will want to accept the £600,000, which will be a vast undersell of the true value of their claim. What mechanisms is the Minister putting in place to ensure that people do not undervalue their claim and take that easy option to bring the matter to a close?

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Full and fair compensation lies at the heart of this matter, and we do not want people to feel that the £600,000 is the only option for getting compensation in quick time. It is there for those who want to take  the money, walk away and draw a line under the matter, particularly where they think their claim is below that figure. As the hon. Gentleman might have heard me say earlier, on the recommendation of the advisory board and others involved in the process, as soon as a full claim is received, individuals in the overturned conviction cohort will get their interim compensation of £163,000 topped up immediately to £450,000. That will ease the financial pressure and reduce what he suggests might be an incentive for people to take a lower amount than they deserve. A significant amount of money will be paid forward on that basis while the remainder of the compensation claim can be properly assessed.

Duncan Baker: I echo some of the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). I had an email overnight from a lady in Australia whose father was prosecuted by the DWP. He had been extremely ill, and he was given a six-month prison sentence for a crime he did not commit. From the statement this afternoon it is clear that the scope of the Bill will apply only to prosecutions from the CPS and Post Office Ltd. Those who received a sentence from the DWP will therefore be outside the scope of the new law. That cannot be right, Minister.

Kevin Hollinrake: We have looked at this very carefully. In all the appeals based on DWP cases, the convictions have been upheld thus far. Clearly it is rare that we take the kind of route that we are taking now, in summarily overturning convictions. We see that the evidence bar was much higher in those cases. As I said earlier, there was surveillance of suspects and collation and examination of cash orders from stolen benefit books and girocheques, so there is a significant evidence base for these convictions. I would point out that people can still technically appeal their convictions. They can go through the normal Court of Appeal route. I would be happy to have a discussion with my hon. Friend afterwards to discuss this further if that would be helpful.

Andrew Bridgen: After 14 years of campaigning on behalf of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Rudkin, and the other sub-postmasters who were victims, I welcome our now having almost a weekly update on the compensation scheme. I also welcome the Minister’s announcement of more generous interim payments for the victims, but I have to disagree when he says that the sub-postmasters Horizon scandal is unprecedented. I am thinking of the infected blood scandal, the so-called Gulf war syndrome repayment scandal and the banking fraud scandal, and of course the House will have the vaccine deaths and vaccine harms scandal to look forward to, which will overshadow everything that has come before. Does the Minister think that those would benefit from a docudrama?

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman outlines particular scandals, but my responsibility extends only as far as the Post Office in that regard. As he knows, I come to the House quite often and I probably have enough on my plate in dealing with this issue right now. I thank him for all the campaigning he has done from the Back Benches on this issue and I very much hope that Mr and Mrs Rudkin get the compensation they deserve as soon as possible.

Diana R. Johnson: The Minister often comes to the Chamber to discuss this scandal, and I just wish that Ministers in other Departments, dealing with other scandals, came as often as he does, for which I compliment him. Will he Minister confirm that all those with overturned convictions will be compensated before the general election?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the right hon. Lady for all her work on this subject and on the infected blood scandal. I contributed to that work as a Back Bencher, and I understand that £400 million has been paid out in interim compensation, but I know she will not rest until all the people she represents get full and final compensation.
On overturned convictions, not everything is within our gift. We are summarily overturning convictions en masse, and we hope to do that very quickly. We plan to table legislation next month, and we hope to overturn all the convictions by July. That will open the door to compensation through the two different routes. We are somewhat at the mercy of claims being submitted, which can take time. The £600,000 route is much quicker. I cannot say when the general election will be, so I cannot answer yes to the right hon. Lady’s specific question, but I very much hope we will do so. Our original date was August, and we hope to get everybody compensated by the end of this year. We will do everything we can to ensure that is the case.

Sarah Olney: We understand why the legislation to overturn convictions must be limited, but we have heard today from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) about convictions that were secured through other systems and other prosecutors. What assessment has been made of the likely number of people who have been wrongfully convicted outside the boundaries that have been set? What might be made available for people who want to bring their own appeals against wrongful convictions but who cannot make use of the forthcoming legislation?

Kevin Hollinrake: It is fair to say that we can all now see a significant body of evidence showing that these were wrongful convictions, which is why we are acting in this unprecedented way. If the hon. Lady is referring to the Capture cases, we do not have that body of evidence thus far. We think the DWP cases are a different cohort because of the evidential standard. We are acting in this way because we do not think the evidential standard for Horizon was of the right level, and clearly a number of different factors were involved in these convictions. The DWP cases are different. There are around 70 to 100 cases in the DWP cohort, which means that the vast majority of the 983 convictions will be overturned by this legislation.

Barbara Keeley: I want to raise again with the Minister the shortcomings of the Horizon shortfall scheme. My constituent, Mr Pennington, was a sub-postmaster for over 20 years, and for 11 of those years he had the stress and worry of continually having to pay back shortfalls generated in error by the Horizon system. He has not received back all that he was forced to pay in, and he was offered only a derisory £1,500 for 11 years of stress and financial distress. I wrote to the Minister about this case five weeks ago, and I have still not received a response. Last week,  the Business Secretary said that I will receive a letter very soon. How long will Mr Pennington have to wait for answers to his questions after so many years of financial stress and worry?

Kevin Hollinrake: I will chase that correspondence as soon as I leave the Chamber. I thought I had signed the correspondence, and I apologise if the hon. Lady has not received it. I will ensure that she receives it at the earliest possible opportunity.
I am familiar with the hon. Lady’s case, having read about it and about the times she has raised it in the House and elsewhere. I am keen to look at this. The advisory board made recommendations about how we can make sure everyone feels that their settlement is fair. We are looking at those recommendations, and I will get the letter to her as soon as I can.

Sammy Wilson: I thank the Minister for the urgency he has brought to trying to resolve this terrible injustice. It seems that this has been against resistance from within the Post Office, where an attempt is still being made to cover up the negligence and incompetence of the management. May I take him back to the points he has made about this legislation applying to Northern Ireland? I am not convinced of the reasons he has given: first, that this is a devolved issue; secondly, that the justice system is different in Northern Ireland; and, thirdly, that he does not want to step on the feet of the judges in Northern Ireland. In the past, legislation has gone through this House that has related to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, with Northern Ireland being included as the result of a legislative consent motion. Has he explored that opportunity with the Minister and the Executive in Northern Ireland? Has there been resistance from the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland or is it willing to co-operate if Northern Ireland were to be included?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. I believe he has contributed to every debate in which I have been involved in this House on this matter, so I thank him for his work. Clearly, justice and the judicial system are devolved to Northern Ireland. The difference here is that this is not simply legislating for general matters across the piece; it is about overturning individual cases, which I understand is unprecedented—it certainly is in my experience. We have engaged with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and I am happy to continue to do so and to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about the points he has raised. These are difficult decisions to make. This was the decision we have taken but, as I say, I am happy to have a further conversation with him.

Kate Osborne: The sub-postmasters have no trust or faith in the compensation processes being handled by the Post Office or the Government. Today’s commitments will still not deal with all the inequalities in the schemes or the undue influence that the Post Office still has on the process. Echoing the sentiments of some of my hon. Friends, may I ask  the Minister to agree to place the compensation schemes into an external independent body, completely outside the influence of the Post Office? I asked the Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon  Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has asked, about the timescales for the legislation to overturn the convictions, but we still have not got an answer. If it is not before the general election, will it be before the summer recess? Finally, when will people be held to account for this miscarriage of justice, be it within the Government, the Post Office or Fujitsu?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Lady for her campaigning on this issue. Again, she has been a key part of the campaign to ensure that people receive justice. Let me deal with the point about fair compensation. As I say, on the GLO scheme, 41 of the 58 full claims that have been submitted have been accepted without even going to the next stage. That would tend to indicate that those first offers are fair. I am aware of some people who feel that their offers are not fair, but I think it is wrong to look at individual cases in this context; it is right that we look to make all the schemes fair. As for undue influence, let me be clear that every part of this process has an independent element to it. Under the GLO scheme and the overturned convictions schemes, that is provided by retired judges, Sir Ross Cranston and Sir Gary Hickinbottom, in order to ensure that those schemes are independent of any “undue influence”, as she puts it. Clearly, the GLO scheme is not being run by the Post Office; it is run by my Department. We are looking at recommendations from the advisory board about what we do with new cases of overturned convictions. On timescales, we have been clear today that we will table the legislation in March and we hope it completes its passage through both Houses by July at the latest. Again, that is not entirely within our gift.

Stephen Farry: Around this time last week, I reiterated my call on the Government to include Northern Ireland in this legislation, so I was disappointed to see that it applies only to England and Wales. There is a cross-party consensus in Northern Ireland for this House to take the legislation forward, and that includes my colleague the Justice Minister, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Executive has just been restored and they have a large work programme to get through. We have a small number of cases in Northern Ireland. Doing our own legislation would require disproportionate effort and would involve considerable delay, which would remove equity across the UK. Let me reinforce the points made by my colleague the Justice Minister and ask: will the Minister reconsider the position as regards Northern Ireland and include it in the legislation? I understand that that is relatively straightforward to do.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points and I am sorry to disappoint him. I understood last week that he might be disappointed in what we were about to announce later that day. I spoke to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland that day, as I wanted to talk to her before I informed the House of our intention. I will continue to engage with the hon. Gentleman and the Justice Minister, as will my colleagues and officials, to ensure there is no delay for the people affected in Northern Ireland. Of course I am happy to have a continued conversation with him about that.

Amy Callaghan: I  thank the Minister for his statement and his continued dedication to the victims of Horizon. Will he apologise  to my constituent Louise Dar, former sub-postmistress in Lenzie, for the devastating damage that Post Office Ltd and Horizon did to her and her family’s life and livelihood? Will he ensure compensation is swiftly given to Louise and all other sub-postmasters?

Kevin Hollinrake: I apologise without hesitation. What happened to Louise and her family is a disgrace. It should never have happened, and we should not be in this situation, but we are where we find ourselves. We now need to do exactly what the hon. Lady has set out: seek to deliver compensation as quickly as possible. If she would like a conversation about that case, I am happy to help where I can.

Clive Efford: I come to the House virtually every time we have questions on this subject, or it is before the House, and I am taken in by the Minister’s mellifluous bromides about the compensation scheme. However, a letter from the chief executive of the Post Office, Nick Read, suggests that over half the convictions are safe and that the Post Office would defend them. Furthermore, he says that the Post Office is taking on expert police investigators to investigate the investigators, which is pouring even more good money after bad. How can the sub-postmasters who have been convicted and those who have been wronged by the Horizon scandal have any confidence in a scheme that is influenced by the Post Office in any way? In making decisions, how much are the Government relying on information from investigations by the Post Office?

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman does contribute virtually every single time the issue is discussed, and I thank him for that. It is hugely important for postmasters in his constituency and further afield that his voice is contributing to those calling for the remedies needed. I am aware of the letter on this issue from the Post Office’s chief executive officer, and what he says; it was his choice to write that letter. Today’s statement, and the one on Thursday, illustrate that the letter had no influence on us; we think that introducing legislation is the right thing to do. We have always been clear that some guilty people will be made innocent through the process. We think that is a risk worth taking—the least worst option. As for the influence on compensation and other matters for individuals, we have ensured that there are independent processes running right through the compensation schemes. The advisory board is holding our feet to the fire very effectively, and I welcome its work.

Carla Lockhart: I thank the Minister for his statement and his efforts. He will be aware of correspondence from the Northern Ireland Executive and the Department of Justice; my Northern Ireland colleagues have alluded to it. It is a rarity for three parties in Northern Ireland to agree on something, but I believe it is outrageous that Northern Ireland is being excluded from the legislation. Will the Minister redouble his efforts and rethink that? This Parliament is  sovereign. Time and again, this Parliament has intervened with laws and legislation on devolved matters in Northern Ireland, so will he go away and urgently relook at this situation?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I can assure her that I will continue to engage with her on this matter, along with the relevant representatives from the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, as will our officials. I understand her disappointment. I understand her preference, and the preference of some Ministers in the Justice Department, but we will continue that engagement and try to make sure that compensation in Northern Ireland is not denied or delayed; we do not want that in England and Wales, either.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for the update. He referred to officers, family members and direct employees. I wish to ask this on behalf of family members. The news over the weekend indicated that 250 victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal have passed away; some of them had no knowledge whatsoever that their name would ever be cleared, or that compensation would come. Will the Minister say that every one of those people will have their family members compensated, that help and advice will be available, that they will receive an apology on behalf of their loved ones, and that this will be done as soon as possible?

Kevin Hollinrake: I certainly apologise to all those people to whom the hon. Member refers. I read the reports this weekend about the number of people who have passed away. Indeed, one of my constituents, Sam Harrison of Nawton in Helmsley—one of the original 555—passed away last May prior to receiving compensation, which was devastating for the family. Just to be clear, those claims can still go forward and their estates will be compensated to the same degree. Nevertheless, that is slim comfort in that situation. “Family members” are those who have been directly affected by someone being convicted or prosecuted by the Post Office or the Crown Prosecution Service. Other family members can be compensated under the wider process—for example, where a house has been lost or a bankruptcy has happened. They can benefit through routes for compensation to the family in general. I am happy to have a discussion about everything that we need to look at in that area.

Jonathan Gullis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Gentleman will find out that I like to observe the courtesies of the House.
That concludes the proceedings on the statement. I thank the Minister and those on the Opposition Front Bench for their attendance.

Points of Order

Jonathan Gullis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 22 February,  at 10.56 pm, in response to an accusation that Labour MPs had slowed down the day’s proceedings last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) posted this statement on social media:
“Labour did not slow it down.”
In an interview with Cathy Newman published on YouTube yesterday, he was asked:
“Were you put up to that filibuster, or did you take it upon yourself?”.
He responded:
“A bit of both if I’m honest.”
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you will know, the hon. Member for Rhondda was, until recently, the Chair of the Committee on Standards, and must surely be expected to hold himself to the highest standard of behaviour, including in relation to honesty. He even wrote a  book called “Code of Conduct: Why We Need to Fix Parliament–and How to Do It”. Well, he certainly showed us how to do it last week. Can you advise  me on what mechanisms are available for an immediate investigation of the hon. Member for Rhondda for bringing this House into disrepute?

Roger Gale: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this point of order. The ten-minute rule, giving Members leave to introduce a Bill, limits speeches for and against to 10 minutes each, and those speeches are normally heard without interruption. It is not in order for Members of this House to act in an obstructive manner by speaking at inordinate length, which is what filibustering means. According to Hansard, the speech by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) took no more than seven minutes. As is clear from column 720, the Chair was, as always, listening carefully to that speech to make sure that it was in order—and for verification, I was the Chair. It is not for the Chair to go into Member’s motives for speaking in the House, or the motives behind when and for how long they choose to speak, as long as when they do, they remain within the rules.

Clive Lewis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Shell plc, a British company, has proposed the sale of its Nigerian subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Development Company, SPDC, raising serious concerns that its environmental responsibilities and obligations in the Niger delta could be evaded. This is one of the most significant business and human rights issues of our generation. Shell is responsible for some of the most brutal, violent, and repressive actions by a company, in this case against communities in the Niger delta. This includes complicity in the execution of the Ogoni nine, including writer and human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. Shell’s exit from the Niger delta could set a precedent for other British multinationals operating in the global south that may be seeking to evade responsibility for environmental destruction, leaving communities with little recourse to justice. In 2013, the UK committed to enforcing the United Nations principles  on business and human rights. I ask your advice about how this House can ensure that the Government do not allow Shell to leave behind an environmental catastrophe as it seeks to exit the Niger delta.

Roger Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. As he will be aware, that is not a matter for the Chair. He has until 12.30 pm on Wednesday next week to table an oral question to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for Tuesday 11 March, and of course, as an experienced Member, he knows how to table an early-day motion, and how to apply for a general debate in Westminster Hall, a half-hour Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate. The Table Office will be pleased to advise him on other options.

Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. On 29 November 2023, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to correct an oversight in the autumn statement. Although it included welcome additional funding to tackle antisemitism, it did not include an announcement of additional funding to tackle Islamophobia. Three months later, I have yet to receive a response. The Government seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Islamophobia—they cannot even mention the word—and what happened at the weekend makes that especially concerning. They have still not filled the role of independent adviser on Islamophobia, and they refuse to say the word. May I have your guidance on how I might secure a reply from the Prime Minister, so that we can all work urgently to stamp out Islamophobia, antisemitism and all forms of hate speech?

Roger Gale: The hon. Lady will be well  aware that the Chair is not responsible for ministerial correspondence or responses. I seem to recall that in  the dim and distant past, when I was on the Back Benches, I waited quite a long time for ministerial replies myself. I am quite sure that the usual channels will have heard what she had to say. If she wishes for further advice, I am sure that the Table Office will be most willing to help.

David Simmonds: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. My parliamentary assistant, Jill Brown, has just completed 50 years of continuous service to Members of this House. She joined the House in 1974, in the service of John MacGregor, and subsequently worked for Angela Watkinson and Nick Hurd, my predecessor. I seek your guidance on how the House may best acknowledge that exemplary record of service.

Roger Gale: Yet again, that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join in congratulating and thanking Jill Brown for her long and distinguished service to several Members of this House.

Paul Holmes: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) not only said,
“A bit of both if I’m honest”,
but,
“I think the whole day was grubby and we need a system which doesn’t allow people to manipulate the rules to be able to get what they want.”
The host of “Channel 4 News” then said that that was exactly what Labour did, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda simply laughed, without adding anything further. We all saw in this Chamber a number of spurious points of order, and the hon. Gentleman’s response to the ten-minute rule motion. The Leader of the Opposition denied that any parliamentary chicanery took place. That is clearly not true, so how do I urge the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Rhondda to come back to the House and correct the record to journalists relating to statements that the hon. Gentleman made outside this House?

Roger Gale: I will go out on a limb and say that we probably all agree that the House did not cover itself in glory in that debate last week. That said, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) is well aware that the Chair, and indeed officers of the House, are not responsible for remarks made in the media outside the House, so I am afraid that on that score, I cannot assist him further.

Business of the House

Ordered,
That at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Northern Ireland not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on that Motion may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Baker.)

Northern Ireland

Steven Baker: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty welcoming the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, re-affirming the importance of upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in all its strands, acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts, and recognising that, consistent with section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.
I say to the House, and particularly to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have wanted to be here to move the motion, but he is travelling as he returns from a regional Cabinet meeting, and he sends his apologies.
We have now seen the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland following the publication of the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper last month. I believe that I speak for the whole House in welcoming those extremely positive developments, as Northern Ireland had been without a devolved Government for two years. I take this opportunity to congratulate the First Minister, Michelle O’Neill, and, if I may, especially the Deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, who, of course, we all know from her time in this House. I wish them both every success. If I may say so, I think the whole nation, which has been paying attention, will be astonished by the brilliance with which they are working together despite their differences on the constitutional question; I, for one, am absolutely delighted.
We have already seen what can be done when the political parties are back in government, working together to deliver for those who elect them. Aided by the £3.3 billion funding package from the UK Government, the Executive have already decided to allocated over £685 million to allow conversations to commence between employers and trade unions. The UK Government’s significant, fair and generous spending settlement will also allow the Northern Ireland Executive to stabilise public services, better manage public finances, increase opportunities for improved infrastructure and investment, and pave the way for the transformation of public services.
I very much look forward to working with the new First Minister, Deputy First Minister and all their ministerial colleagues to deliver those shared objectives, and I eagerly await the Executive’s sustainability plan for Northern Ireland’s finances, including proposals for revenue raising, following the Secretary of State’s discussions with the political parties on those issues at Hillsborough Castle before Christmas.
I move this Humble Address to welcome the return of devolution and further honour the Government’s commitment in the Command Paper to provide a mechanism for Parliament to affirm its commitment to the Acts of Union, and to outline that there is no basis in the Belfast agreement for joint authority arrangements with the Government of Ireland. The UK Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement, in its totality and all its facets, is resolute and unfaltering.

Colum Eastwood: This Humble Address reads like a love letter to the DUP—I just caution the DUP not to get too comfortable, because I am not sure that it will be a forever love. A couple of weeks ago, the Secretary of State said in this House that we needed the majority “consent of both” the Unionist community and the nationalist community to achieve constitutional change in Ireland. I wrote to him after that asking him to correct the record, because, of course, we only need a simple majority to see constitutional change in Ireland. He wrote back to me correcting what he had said, but he has not corrected the record in this House. Will the Minister take this opportunity to do so, please?

Steven Baker: I will correct the record: all that is required is a simple majority, just as the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that we all regret the confusion that has arisen. I will later in my speech address specifically some of the points that he has raised, but I will return them in due course if he will allow me.
The restoration of the strand 1 institutions is welcome news. I am hopeful that we will soon also see the  North South Ministerial Council and other strand 2 implementation bodies returned to full operation, alongside the meetings of the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference that are already scheduled to take place in the coming months and which I have attended in the past. That three-stranded approach—that delicate and careful balance—honours the spirit and letter of the agreement, providing a fitting tribute to those brave men and women who, some 26 years ago, helped to deliver the agreement that is the bedrock of so much peace, stability and progress in Northern Ireland.
This Humble Address also rightly acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under article 6 of those Acts. The Government are clear that the new arrangements committed to in the Command Paper, including the UK internal market system, ensure the smooth flow of trade across the UK. As the House knows, we have already legislated to those ends.
The final part of this Humble Address relates to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. As Unionists, it is important that this Government emphasise how much Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom is valued and respected, both in law and in practice. Nevertheless, our appreciation of Northern Ireland within the UK is set in the context of respecting the core principles and relationships at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. At the heart of that agreement is the principle of consent. That means that Northern Ireland will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom, with the Acts of Union and the economic rights under article 6 properly respected and protected in law and with the sovereignty of Parliament undiminished, ruling out joint authority between London and Dublin, which we will not countenance.

John Redwood: When I last asked him in the House, the Secretary of State assured us that this House can now legislate for VAT in Northern Ireland, which was a very welcome assurance. Can the Minister explain how far the EU can go in legislating for Northern Ireland if we in the Unionist community are not very happy with that?

Steven Baker: I refer my right hon. Friend to the table on page 4 of the Command Paper, which answers his question somewhat more broadly. That table compares Northern Ireland to Ireland as an illustrative member state and Norway as a European economic area state, and goes through the ways in which the status of Northern Ireland, EU membership and EEA membership differ. Anyone looking at that table can see that Northern Ireland is in a completely different place.
When it comes to the specific issue of the extent to which Northern Ireland can be legislated for by the EU, I refer my right hon. Friend to the democratic consent mechanism for the overall arrangement—the first vote on which will take place later in the year—and also to the Stormont brake, to which we could return but which we have covered in previous debates. I have known my right hon. Friend very well for a number of years; I have followed his thoughts on this issue since some years before I was a Member, and I am reluctant to give him a very specific answer on the issue of VAT. I know he will have followed the details, and the last thing I want to do is give him an incorrect answer.

John Redwood: No, I have had an answer on that.

Steven Baker: If my right hon. Friend will agree, I would like to have a meeting with him, because I am very clear that the scope of law that can apply in Northern Ireland is that which is necessary to ensure the smooth flow of goods.
I have said before at this Dispatch Box that we were always going to have special arrangements for Northern Ireland. When I resigned from the then Government in 2018, the issue that I forced among our colleagues in the European Research Group was that of Northern Ireland. We wrote a paper that said that there would need to be alternative administrative and technical arrangements so that there could be an open border with the Republic of Ireland. We understood that there would be special arrangements. There was never going to be an open border with no arrangements to deal with it, and there was never going to be a hard border; it was always going to be necessary to do something unique and special in Northern Ireland.
As I have also said at this Dispatch Box, had this country gone forward with one united voice in accepting the referendum result, and had this country enjoyed the good quality of relations with Ireland and the EU that we enjoy today, we might have done better than leaving in place some EU law in Northern Ireland. I wish we had, but after all we have been through and the eight years it has taken to do it, I think that this settlement taken overall—the Windsor framework plus the Command Paper, including the Humble Address we are debating today—represents the moment to bank what I regard as a win and move forward constructively in the best interests of all the people of the UK, but also the people of the Republic of Ireland.

John Redwood: Let me reassure the Minister that the Secretary of State gave me a very clear assurance in this House that we can legislate for VAT for Northern Ireland —so I am not quite sure why he was querying that.

Steven Baker: The Secretary of State has made that clear, but I have some nervousness when talking to my right hon. Friend because of the extent and difficulty of the  walk he and I have had together; I know how powerfully he feels about these issues. I am very clear that the EU can only legislate in relation to the goods law that remains in place and we have had the very clear assurance on VAT, but if he has any further doubts or concerns about this, I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down with him, go through it in great detail and answer all his questions, even if he is not 100% satisfied. As I have said—I think now for the fifth or sixth time—I know that leaving in place some EU law in Northern Ireland is a hard compromise for Unionists and Eurosceptics. It is a hard compromise for me, as I know it is a hard compromise for him. Nevertheless, eight years on, we have delivered what I would regard as alternative arrangements in Northern Ireland—something we were once told was magical thinking and worthy of unicorns.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Does the Minister of State join me in welcoming the fact that we currently have the first applicability motion being brought before the Assembly? It is a change to the previous arrangements and enables the Assembly to vote on whether a change to an EU law can apply in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, under the auspices of the Assembly’s newly established Democratic Scrutiny Committee, the Assembly will be able to block the application of new EU law and refer it to the UK Government for further consideration, and that ultimately the UK Government can veto that law being applied in Northern Ireland. While imperfect, these arrangements represent very substantial progress from where we were, which was an automatic pipeline of EU law, with no opportunity for scrutiny, and no opportunity to block or veto such a law. We are certainly in a better place than we were before these new arrangements.

Steven Baker: I am most grateful to the right hon. Member. Of course I welcome these arrangements. I was very pleased to give instruction to my officials that the Assembly should be notified. Beyond that, on the particular measure, I do not wish to go any further at all, because I am absolutely determined that this should be a matter for the Assembly, with the UK Government stepping back and leaving it to the democratic consent of MLAs.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: I will give way once more, but I think I should then make a little more progress.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Minister does not want to be in a position where he is the gift that keeps on giving to certain people. I would like clarity on this issue of VAT, because it was cleared up from the Dispatch Box before that the EU would have no say on VAT matters. A Minister of the Crown should be able to say, from the Dispatch Box, that the EU has no impact and no say whatsoever on the issue of VAT. I come to this very directly on behalf of a constituent who has already written to me. In the last two weeks, he has received notification that, before he can purchase machinery, he has to provide an EORI—economic operators registration and identification —number, which is a Republic of Ireland VAT mechanism. He does not trade in the Republic of Ireland and he has nothing to do with the Republic of Ireland, yet he has  been asked by our authorities to provide an EORI before he purchases equipment in the United Kingdom for trade within the United Kingdom. This has to be cleared up, and it has to be cleared up pretty fast.

Steven Baker: The assurance was given on VAT, and I stand by that assurance. Before this moment, I was not aware of the particular circumstances that the hon. Member has just shared with me. I encourage him either to write to me or to come to see me—perhaps to do both—and let us get to the bottom of it. One thing I am sure of is that we want to get through all these tricky issues as smoothly, transparently and effectively as possible in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland, because it really is time to move on, get public services reformed, get the Government there on to a sustainable basis and allow people to get on with life as usual.

Colum Eastwood: rose—

Steven Baker: I must give way to the hon. Member once more, but then I think I will finish.

Colum Eastwood: The point is actually in the Humble Address—and the Government seem to be going out of their way both in the Command Paper and the Humble Address to make the point—that, in the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there is no provision for joint authority. Of course, we all know—those of us who have been around long enough—that many things have changed since then, not least at St Andrews. But, that aside, would the Minister confirm to this House that there is also no provision in the Good Friday agreement or the 1998 Act for direct rule from London?

Steven Baker: Strand 1 is of course a matter for the United Kingdom, and while Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom, everyone would expect us to make Northern Ireland work within the UK. Although there is no provision for direct rule, I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that we went to some lengths, and at some cost, not to return to direct rule at this time. We have allowed events to evolve as they have precisely because we did not wish to return to direct rule. We are extremely grateful that there is a returned Executive in Northern Ireland, but we have a responsibility to all citizens of Northern Ireland to ensure that they are governed effectively. That is why we have put in place the arrangements that we made, and I for one am grateful that we did not have to go any further.

Stephen Farry: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: Oh my word: we are going to have a general debate on the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Stephen Farry: I am grateful to the Minister. His remark about ensuring that this works for all our citizens has sparked me to life. Will he set out the Government’s approach to reform of the institutions? As he knows, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee produced a comprehensive report on the issue, which to date the Government have simply said that they “note”. There is still a risk that the institutions will collapse, and the same reasons that allowed them to collapse in the past are still there. Hopefully they will not collapse, but that  is the danger. Will he assure us that he and his colleagues will work closely with the Irish Government and the parties in Northern Ireland to ensure a proper examination of the rules on the institutions, to ensure that we do not end up in the same mess that we have had twice over the past seven years?

Steven Baker: I am most grateful—although after this I will plunge further into my speech, because I want to conclude it. Our position is very clear that any change must come from the parties in Northern Ireland. That is not to say we are uninterested—I have personally been through an exercise of considering all the possible reforms that there could be. At the end of that lengthy exercise, I concluded that no plan for reform of the institutions and their operation would work if it was driven by yours truly. It is essential that this conversation comes from the parties in Northern Ireland. I do not doubt that we will wish to note and take interest in such a conversation, but it is for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who are well represented on the opposition Benches, to move such a conversation forward. That is not something that the UK Government will be driving forward. It is vital that the new Executive now have the space to get on with governing Northern Ireland and doing what is very much needed.

Richard Graham: Will the Minister give way?

Steven Baker: I said that I was going to press on, but my colleague is the first Conservative Member to intervene on this theme, so I will give way.

Richard Graham: I am grateful to the Minister. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) earlier described the statement as a “love letter to the DUP”, but I saw it more as a love letter to Northern Ireland, and the huge opportunities that can be seized from realising what he and his colleagues, working with all parties in Northern Ireland, have managed to pull together. Does he agree that an interesting statistic about Northern Ireland this year is the huge increase in the number of businesses registered there? I think it is up by 60% in the last year alone. Surely that is a great sign of the confidence that people and businesses now have in the opportunities in Northern Ireland.

Steven Baker: I certainly agree about the extraordinary opportunity before Northern Ireland.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are explicit that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would require the consent of a simple majority of its people. The UK Government are absolutely clear that there is no basis to suggest that at present a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the UK. Our position is therefore straightforward: Northern Ireland has a bright and prosperous future within the Union, for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it. That position does not diminish the right of others to pursue through democratic and peaceful means their aspiration for other outcomes.
We all remain committed to building and strengthening the three sets of relationships at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The restoration of the political institutions at Stormont will enable critical relationships  across and between communities in Northern Ireland to be strengthened, with vital work on building reconciliation to be taken forward in the months and years ahead. There are new opportunities to strengthen co-operation in the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland from outside the EU. This co-operation does not threaten Northern Ireland’s constitutional status, but it can help to build economic prosperity and deliver vital investment in infrastructure. As a UK Government, we also recognise the need to invest in east-west relationships, not only within the United Kingdom, as with the new UK East-West Council, but through the other institutions, such as the British-Irish Council and the intergovernmental conference.

Jim Shannon: I am heartened to hear what the Minister has said about the importance of the east-west connections. Sometimes there is not enough emphasis on those, so I am keen to hear what the Minister will do to ensure that those happen with a much more concrete attitude, as well as what he will do on Ulster Scots and the culture. It is not only east-west in the UK that is important, but east-west to the USA. Those are some of the things I feel we should be doing.

Steven Baker: I know we will hear from my hon. Friend many times on these issues, and he has a great deal to contribute. I will see to it, particularly with this new role I have jointly with the Cabinet Office, that the Command Paper is vigorously implemented with all the strength I can muster to get it done at a speed that suits him and me. I will update the House in due course as we make progress. I certainly want the whole House and all the people of Northern Ireland to know what we are doing and when we are doing it, and to see that we are making progress with vigour. I certainly commit to doing that. I have had this joint role with the Windsor framework taskforce for a week, and I have made some progress, but I hope he will understand that I am not ready today to commit to a timeline to all the institutions being up and running. We certainly will proceed with vigour.
Our exit from the EU should not mean that co-operation and friendship are diminished. Rather, it compels us all to work harder to invest in and strengthen all the relationships that are important to the peoples within these islands and across Europe. Our independent status should in no way diminish our friendship. I commend this Humble Address to the House.

Hilary Benn: Whether this Humble Address is or is not a love letter to anyone, I will leave for others to debate, but it certainly can be described as a coda to the recent restoration of the institutions in Northern Ireland. As we have heard from the Minister, it addresses a number of matters that I shall briefly touch upon, but may I make it clear at the beginning that the Opposition will be supporting it?
This is our first opportunity as a House to welcome the return of devolved government, and I wish to acknowledge the leadership of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) in recognising that, for the sake of Northern Ireland and its people, the DUP needed to return to government, and in arguing the case for that course of action so persuasively. The Secretary of State and I have both had the pleasure of  meeting the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I must say that I agree with the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), that they have made a positive start and have set the tone for what we all hope will be a constructive and productive Administration. I join him in wishing both of them, together with the other members of the Executive and indeed the whole Assembly, every success in their responsibilities, because their task—our task, collectively—is to ensure that this restoration endures. Let us be frank, however. I hope people will also recognise that never again should Northern Ireland find itself without its Assembly and its devolved Government.
It is also right that we reaffirm our support for the Good Friday agreement in all its strands and dimensions. It is important for us to do so, because the agreement made possible the considerable progress we have seen in Northern Ireland, including the establishment of power sharing. That reaffirming is also needed because there was a perception that some of the language in the recent Command Paper was not wholly in keeping with the spirit of shared commitment.
I will raise one section of the Command Paper that I found genuinely puzzling, which is what it said about the all-island economy and the Government’s commitment to remove the legal duties to have regard to the all-island economy in section 10(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That section of the withdrawal Act actually refers to having
“due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50”
on the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the EU. The report runs to 15 pages, but there appears, as far as I can see, to be only one reference in it to the all-island economy, in the last two lines of paragraph 49.
In responding, can the Minister explain what the effect would be of repealing section 10(1)(b) of the 2018 Act, given that it refers to the whole of the joint report, and not just to the reference in paragraph 49 to the all-island economy? Does that mean Ministers would no longer have to have regard to anything at all in the joint report —surely that cannot be the case—or are the Government saying that they wish to remove the reference to the all-island economy in paragraph 49? In that case, given that it was a joint report agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, have Ministers told the EU of their intentions? To follow up, when might we see the legislation and the new statutory guidance?
No one is in any doubt that Northern Ireland does far more trade with the UK internal market than it does with Ireland, and that will continue to be the case, but it is also evident that trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic has increased since we left the European Union. That tells us that the all-island economy is both a fact and greatly to the benefit of businesses and people in Northern Ireland, whether that is milk from Northern Ireland going south to be processed, or Coca-Cola produced in the firm’s flagship plant in Lisburn being sold all over Ireland and beyond, or Guinness coming north from Dublin.

Sammy Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has rightly identified one of the impacts of the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol: namely, that trade is now being diverted to the Irish Republic, as firms in Northern Ireland find it more  difficult to link with their supply chains in GB and are forced to look at supplies from the Irish Republic. Some of the people who are now purchasing from the Republic tell me that those supplies are more expensive and of lower quality.

Hilary Benn: The first point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that the three examples I have just given have nothing at all to do with the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor framework; they were all pre-existing facts of the all-island economy, which those businesses welcomed because it is about the ability to trade, find markets, sell their goods and make a return. Secondly, he returns, understandably, to the essential problem that the protocol and the Windsor framework have been trying to address, and it is the point that the Minister made openly in his speech, which is that once we left the EU, there was an issue about the border. One way or another, a way had to be found to ensure that goods moving across that non-existent border complied with the rules of the single market. The current Government under a previous Prime Minister made a choice as to how it was going to be done. I strongly support the Windsor framework, precisely because it is an important step forward in trying to make that trade, as the Minister referred to, as easy as possible for businesses. I make that point because many businesses do not really understand why the phrase “all-island economy” should provoke such strong feelings, especially when there has recently been a warm welcome to the allocations from the shared island fund for cross-community projects that will strengthen the all-island economy, including the much-needed improvement to the A5, a more regular train service between Belfast and Dublin, the Narrow Water bridge connecting the counties of Down and Meath, and a contribution to the building of Casement Park so that, in four years, we can all celebrate Northern Ireland helping to host the European football championship. I make that point because many businesses do not really understand why the phrase “all-island economy” should provoke such strong feelings, especially when there has recently been a warm welcome to the allocations from the shared island fund for cross-community projects that will strengthen the all-island economy, including the much-needed improvement to the A5, a more regular train service between Belfast and Dublin, the Narrow Water bridge connecting the counties of Down and Meath, and a contribution to the building of Casement Park so that, in four years, we can all celebrate Northern Ireland helping to host the European football championship.
Nevertheless, we warmly endorse the renewed commitment to the Good Friday agreement contained in the Humble Address, which of course was the then Government’s extraordinary achievement with all the parties involved in the negotiation almost 26 years ago. It is only right that we should remind ourselves as a country of the peace that it has created and of the obligations we took on when we signed it. That includes, as the Minister said, recognition that the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland alone, and that with our co-guarantor, the Irish Government, we have a shared interest in continuing to promote peace, prosperity and progress north and south.
On the next section, when I read the Humble Address I wondered in passing when the Acts of Union 1800 were last referred to in a motion tabled by the Government.  In the light of recent events, I felt that I should familiarise myself with the original Acts, although they have, of course, been considerably amended since. The Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 is short by modern standards—they knew how to say things much more briefly than we seem to manage these days—and contains a number of interesting provisions, including the application of tariffs and excise on certain categories of goods moving between Great Britain and Ireland. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley raised that point with me when we debated the matter recently.
Now, I do not think anyone wants to restore tariffs and excise on certain categories of goods moving, and I do not think anyone wants to restore section 21 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which required that movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland be treated as imports and exports for the purposes of forms to be used and the information to be furnished. As we were told, customs officers were instructed to conduct physical inspections of ships with daily sailings twice weekly. How many people even recall that, in 1947, the Stormont Parliament introduced a requirement that workers from Great Britain would need a work permit to go and work in Northern Ireland?
Those are not just interesting historical facts. As the Command Paper’s informative annex pointed out—congratulations to the civil servants who did the research and drafted that—the Acts of Union have not been a guarantor at all times of free and unfettered movements of goods and people over the centuries. Instead, they have framed a slightly more complex relationship than is sometimes suggested.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right. That is why, in our seven tests, we talked about fulfilling the Acts of Union, while others—those who had not bothered to read the original Acts of Union, who did not know what they were talking about, who seek to rewrite history and who declare themselves as the champions of Unionism but do not know their facts—talked about restoring something, which would mean customs checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and tariffs on goods manufactured in Northern Ireland being sold in Great Britain. That is the kind of nonsense that our detractors daily pump out. They should check their facts, know their history and understand what they are talking about.

Hilary Benn: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we have just had a wonderful example of the persuasive power of his argument? Whoever we are, and whatever view we hold, getting the facts right is really quite basic to doing our job in this place. That is why it is important—especially in the context of Northern Ireland—to get those facts right.
I turn to the last part of the Humble Address, which is simply talking about facts. It states the fact that this House retains the right to legislate in respect of Northern Ireland, and it is simply a fact that the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 do not provide for joint authority with the Irish Government over what happens inside Northern Ireland. That is also acknowledged by the Irish Government. But, at the same time—I welcome what the Minister said—we must do  all we can to foster and strengthen the shared institutions established under strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement, not least because we have made most progress on this difficult matter when we have had a close working relationship with the Irish Government.
In conclusion, returning to the first section of the Humble Address, may I simply say that I look forward to working with all—and I mean all—Members of the House and of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and also with the Executive, as together we turn our minds to the task in hand, which is now simply to build a brighter and a better future for the people of Northern Ireland?

Richard Thomson: I have almost lost count of the number of times I have taken to my feet in this Chamber to say that Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally. At last, we can now say that will be the case. No doubt, in terms of the agreement—the settlement that has been reached—there will be imperfections, compromises and asymmetries, and elements that are not for the self-appointed purists. However, there is certainly enough there for the pragmatists to allow for the progress that needs to be made.
Over the course of my time speaking for the Scottish National party on Northern Irish issues, I have had the great pleasure of serving as a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Understandably, much bandwidth in that organisation has been taken up with Brexit and its aftermath, the resulting fallout—and indeed many of the occasional fallings out that have resulted. However, when my committee met in Edinburgh last week, there was a definite change in the tone of conversations outside the formal business. I hope I am not putting words in any Members’ mouths by saying that there was a pleasure, a realism, certainly an optimism, and definitely a realism about recent developments, but the key thing was that nobody was any longer asking about when might Stormont return; rather, it was what would now be done by Stormont to improve the lot of people in Northern Ireland now that it had returned.
Within the agreement, one of the areas that leaps out—I hope that, in time, Ministers will expand on their vision for it—is the East-West Council to deal with matters of business, education and culture across that east-west axis. Even from the perspective of a hard-bitten Scottish nationalist much like myself, that opens up a great deal of useful space potentially to share and develop all that we have in common, all that we continue to have in common, and all that we will have in common and which will endure regardless of wherever our respective constitutional journeys happen to conclude in future.

Jim Shannon: Part of the engagement that the hon. Gentleman and I have had together was on his visit to my constituency of Strangford, where he had the opportunity to look at joint matters that we could agree on, such as fishing issues including visas for fishermen, and cultural issues. We took him to meet many community groups and other organisations as well. Does he agree that one of the important things for him and I was that, although we have different opinions on the constitution, we can agree on many things?

Richard Thomson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Yes, when we put the constitution  to one side, there are indeed many issues that can be  agreed on or worked on together. That is why I find that the space that that council might offer quite compelling. It is certainly something of great interest. Now that politics in Northern Ireland has indeed moved on, it is perhaps time for me to hop once again on the Loganair flight from Aberdeen and perhaps renew some acquaintances.
In the many words we heard throughout the Brexit debate on where Northern Ireland found itself snagged, we often heard a rather boilerplate expression about a “precious Union”. That struck my ears. Those words were easy—perhaps too easy at times—for many in this place to pay lip service to without actually following through on them in practice. Sometimes it is easy to say things, but it is much harder to reflect. It seemed to us that the desire for a particular form of Brexit—favoured only by a small minority hiding behind a small majority in one part of the Union—was given primacy and priority, and was allowed to prevail over the clear wishes of other constituent parts of the Union. For many, however they voted in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, that reopened that debate and encouraged them to reappraise the position that they might have taken at that time.
I can certainly understand why the Humble Address before us is worded in this manner. The key word that the Minister has, in effect, conceded was implied but left unspoken was consent, where it applies to the executive power being vested in His Majesty. That is interesting to me for a number of reasons. Union by consent is how many of us in Scotland understand our position in the Union to work. But unlike Northern Ireland, we have nothing similar in statute to the wording of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, explaining what happens if a majority of those voting in Scotland were to express a wish to cease to be part of the UK. I would contend that in all parts of the Union there should be a way to demonstrate how consent has been withdrawn by the people, if it is being withdrawn. Following the events of the last few days, just like this Parliament, maintaining that consent will be judged by how the institution of the Union treats its minorities and is seen to act with integrity in all that it does.
In conclusion, we on the SNP Benches wish the people of Northern Ireland and their institutions well. We look forward to seeing their politicians and those institutions playing a full role in those bodies, be they north, south, east or west, and to seeing the Good Friday agreement move forward in all its strands, as we always hoped it would, to allow a peaceful, prosperous Northern Ireland to continue to come to terms with its past and be at ease in building its shared future, whatever its people decide that future ought to look like.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the Minister of State for leading this debate today and for his words. I also thank the Shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It is good to hear that common approach to recognising the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland, which is that we should remain part of the United Kingdom. That does not prevent others from pursuing their aspirations by peaceful and democratic means.
This Parliament is reflecting the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland. It is the first time in almost 27 years in this House that I have heard great clarity spoken about the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland and their desire to value Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and, for as long as it is the will of the people of Northern Ireland, about binding our Union together more strongly so that it delivers for everyone. That is what we are in the business of doing, and it is delivering for all the people of Northern Ireland.
I welcome the motion before us this evening and its reaffirmation of the constitutional basis for Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, whether that be the Acts of Union or the Northern Ireland Act 1998, enshrining within it the principle of consent, which was long fought for by Unionists in Northern Ireland but was undermined by the Northern Ireland protocol. It is important for people in Northern Ireland to hear that reasserted and reaffirmed, and to understand that this is the position not only of the Government of the United Kingdom, but of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. It is important to preserve those core principles at the heart of the Belfast agreement. It was frustrating for us when the European Union claimed that the protocol was designed to safeguard the Belfast or Good Friday agreement and the political institutions when, in fact, it had the opposite effect because it did not have the support or consent of the Unionist community.
I welcome the return of devolution in Northern Ireland. I am a committed devolutionist. I believe that a properly functioning devolved Government, delivering for all our people, will cement Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom because people will be comfortable living, working and raising their family in the place that we call home.
I believe that the decision to foist the protocol on Northern Ireland, which had been rejected by every single Unionist Member of the Legislative Assembly, was a mistake. I am glad that we have gone a long way towards correcting the harm done by the protocol to Northern Ireland and to the very delicate political balances at the heart of how Northern Ireland operates, underpinning once again the principles—such as consent—which ensure that Northern Ireland moves forward on the basis of a cross-community consensus. That is how power sharing operates. That is how devolution can deliver for people in Northern Ireland.
The lesson from Northern Ireland over the past 25 years is the need for that consensus from both Unionists and nationalists at every major juncture. This is a universal lesson in any divided society. In 2019 in this House, the former Member for North Belfast, now the noble Lord Dodds, stood in this House and warned us that to proceed with the deal with only the support of one side would be a short-term fix and would undermine devolution in the long term. He was right. That is why it is important that we all commit ourselves today never to do this again, and always to do what we can to underpin and strengthen the need for that cross-community consensus in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will move forward only when we move forward together. Leaving one side behind only stores up problems for the future.
Many believed that we would not succeed in renegotiating the protocol. At times we were warned—not least by the Irish Government and others—that that would simply not happen. I am pleased that, thanks to the decisive  action taken by my party, we got to a point where the EU came back to the negotiating table and progress was made. We have built upon that progress through the measures that have been set forward in the Command Paper “Safeguarding the Union”. Our objective was to remove the border in the UK internal market—those unnecessary checks on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and remaining within the United Kingdom. There was no need for the checks and the customs procedures that were imposed under the protocol because those goods were not leaving the United Kingdom. They did not present a risk to the European Union and its single market.
The desire and the objective of removing those internal barriers to trade within the United Kingdom internal market was also a desire to ensure that we continued to have our privileged access to the EU single market. The shadow Secretary of State was right to say that our biggest market is Great Britain. We sell £12 billion worth of goods each year, manufactured in Northern Ireland, to Great Britain. We sell £8 billion a year to the European Union. It is an important market for us. It is an important market for businesses in my constituency and in all the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Maintaining access to that market is, therefore, important, but we were always clear that it should not be on the basis of restricting access to our biggest market, the rest of the United Kingdom.
I welcome the legislation that was introduced and has now been passed by both Houses of Parliament to strengthen our unfettered access to the market in Great Britain, and to safeguard our supply chains from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, ensuring that where goods stay within the UK internal market, they flow freely. We look forward to the further measures and legislation under the Command Paper proposals to deliver on the Government’s commitments to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market.
I will not go into the detail, as we have rehearsed well what the Command Paper proposes, but I recognise that concerns remain within Unionist ranks about how it will operate in practice. There is more work to be done. I acknowledge that and we acknowledge that as a party. We will continue to work together with the Government to ensure that where more work is needed, it is taken forward and completed. That includes on areas such as veterinary medicines, in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has taken a particular interest. He will be involved in working with the Government to take forward a piece of work to ensure Northern Ireland’s access to veterinary medicines is protected for the future.
There is more work to be done on the so-called red lane, which deals with goods travelling in transit from Great Britain via Northern Ireland into the European Union, or goods that are deemed at risk, for example intermediate goods used in manufacturing where the product is sold to the European Union. We need to ensure that goods travelling into the red lane are only those required for the purpose of satisfying the requirements and standards that the EU sets for entry to its single market. There is more work to be done on that. The Minister will work with us—he has already committed to do that.
We welcome the fact that already, as a result of the recent agreement reached between the UK Government and the European Union, Northern Ireland will benefit from free trade agreements that the UK enters into with other countries, so that goods entering the UK and travelling into Northern Ireland will not have to go through the red lane, and will not be subject to checks and customs procedures. That represents over 12,500 tonnes of goods moving across the Irish sea; some 4 million goods movements that have been removed from the red lane and going into the UK internal market system. That is the kind of progress we can make and will continue to make to address the outstanding issues.

Robert Buckland: The right hon. Gentleman knows how much I value his work and the leadership he has shown. On changes at EU level, the announcement by Maroš Šefčovič in the Joint Committee about goods at risk demonstrates the point he makes so well. This is not just some internal reorganisation; it has international ramifications. That really should demonstrate to businesses in Northern Ireland that this is a serious change that will benefit them. As he says, we can work through the problems and work out some of the other glitches to get them resolved as well. I commend him on that point.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his comments. I believe the challenges we faced as a result of the measures imposed under the protocol are now being properly and adequately addressed. For example, many goods made to British standards in Great Britain were banned from our supermarket shelves in Northern Ireland. That is no longer the case. British goods made to British standards are now available on our supermarket shelves. There is more work to be done and more progress to be made in that respect. This is ongoing work that we will build on.

Jim Shannon: My right hon. Friend is talking about specific cases in relation to goods. Will he confirm that the intention behind the legislation is for the Government to make a positive case to companies that have stopped selling to Northern Ireland for whatever reason—whether green lanes or red lanes—to re-engage and trade with Northern Ireland again?

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I was coming on to but is worth mentioning now. Not only does the Command Paper set out the practical and legal changes that will occur to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market, but the establishment of the UK East-West Council will also help to bind Northern Ireland more closely to the rest of the United Kingdom. I welcome the comments by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who takes a keen interest in Northern Ireland. In fairness to him he recognises, notwithstanding his aspirations in relation to Scotland’s future, that there is real value in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England working more closely together, whether on trade, sharing our experiences on education, or sharing the richness of our heritage and our culture. Those things are important. The new UK East-West Council will ensure a more joined-up approach, so that there is more working together and more co-operation across the whole United Kingdom.
On the specific point my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) makes, the establishment of the new Intertrade UK body will ensure that a proactive approach is taken in instances where businesses in Great Britain have decided that making their goods available to customers in Northern Ireland is not worth the hassle. Those businesses will be approached. Intertrade UK will seek to understand why they are no longer doing business in Northern Ireland, and assist them to restore their trading arrangements with consumers and customers in Northern Ireland.

Priti Patel: The Essex constituency that I represent has a vast horticultural industry that has been prevented from sending its products—seeds and all the other goods that people in Northern Ireland would love to purchase—to Northern Ireland. This is a new opportunity for those businesses. I praise the Department for its engagement with Kings Seeds, based in Kelvedon in my constituency. We have to work through many of the practical issues that have put up barriers. People to people, we can facilitate trade flows that benefit everyone.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention and for her ongoing interest in Northern Ireland, which is always great to see. She is right. Intertrade UK will cover not just issues related to the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, but trade across the UK, between Scotland and England, England and Wales, and so on. It is designed, in the new environment we find ourselves in, to encourage greater trade within the United Kingdom. We have a market in the United Kingdom in the region of 60 million people. It is the second-biggest market in Europe and we should be selling more of our own goods to our own people. The purpose of Intertrade UK is to encourage those enhanced, stronger trading links across all of the United Kingdom. Of course, the Union is not just a political union; it is an economic union. It was the economic union in particular that was harmed by the protocol. The new measures are designed to restore those trading relationships to a more healthy place.
In welcoming the restoration of the devolved institutions, it is important to recognise that one key difficulty with the protocol was the lack of democratic input for the political institutions in Northern Ireland. Laws were being applied automatically to Northern Ireland—new laws and changes to the law—on which Northern Ireland had no say whatever. We welcome the establishment of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which will now have the function to scrutinise laws that are coming forward. It will have the power to stop those laws applying, as I said earlier. The UK Government ultimately have the power of veto if laws are deemed to be harmful to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and its internal market. That is all progress.
I note that some who were critical of the new arrangements and said that the new Democratic Scrutiny Committee was powerless now complain that they are unable to obtain membership of it. Furthermore, I note that some of our detractors now talk about the risk of what they call “trivergence” whereby if the Assembly, exercising its power, vetoes a new law being applied to Northern Ireland, all of a sudden that might create a problem in so far as Northern Ireland will have different  law from the EU and, potentially, different law from Great Britain. But in the new arrangements put in place as a result of the Command Paper, Northern Ireland goods will be available for sale in Great Britain regardless of the circumstances. There is a goods guarantee built into the legislation that this House has approved, which means that Northern Ireland goods, in all circumstances, can be sold in Great Britain. However, I note that those who said the new arrangements would be ineffective now complain that they will be so effective that they might be counterproductive when it comes to Northern Ireland’s interests. Which is it? Either they are effective or they are not. We believe that they can be effective, and we are prepared to test the new mechanisms to ensure that they protect the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.
Let me make a few general points. We welcome the commitments that the UK Government have given about Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, including those given from the Dispatch Box this evening, but I also note that we hear much talk about border polls, and much talk, particularly from Sinn Féin, about the need for such a poll. It is worth recalling the history of Sinn Féin’s approach to border polls. As long ago as 2011, Gerry Adams told us that by 2016, Northern Ireland would leave the United Kingdom. We are almost 10 years on from 2016, and we are still in the UK. By August 2021, Gerry had changed 2016 to 2024; well, 2024 has arrived, and we are still in the UK. In May 2022, Mary Lou McDonald called for a border poll by 2027, but then she changed that to 2030, and just this month Michelle O’Neill shifted the Sinn Féin goalposts once again to call for a border poll by 2034. But they recognise the reality—that it is the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom—and all this talk of divisive border polls is designed simply to reassure the Sinn Féin base.

Gregory Campbell: On our constitutional future, does my right hon. Friend agree that in the changed Northern Ireland that now exists, there are many of us who are proud of our British nationality and will never yield on that, while others are proud of their Irishness? Also, many do not share either constitutional identity. Only membership of the United Kingdom allows people to cherish all three.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. The beauty of Northern Ireland today is that each of us has the right to identify ourselves in whatever way we deem appropriate, but it is evident that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland continue to accept that the settled will of the people is to remain in the United Kingdom, and that should be respected by everyone, regardless of how they identify themselves. It is clear to me, however, that Unionists, myself included, have a job to do in continuing to persuade people that the Union is best for all. This debate is welcome, but neither Parliament nor the courts will ultimately decide Northern Ireland’s future. It is the people of Northern Ireland who will decide our future in the United Kingdom, and our job as Unionists is to continue to persuade the majority that they are better off in the United Kingdom.
Let me say this, with great respect, to my colleagues, not on these Benches but out there in wider Unionism, many of them detractors of us in the DUP—those who  attack my party and the stand that we are taking, because we recognise that building a prosperous Northern Ireland that works for everyone is the key to securing the Union for the future. Let me say to those who are a minority in Unionism, but who still live in the days of the 1970s when Unionism had an inbuilt majority, that Northern Ireland is changing. Its demographics are changing. We need only look at the results of recent polling to see that.
Unionism has to recognise that among younger people, support for the Union is not as strong as it is among more senior citizens in Northern Ireland. Our task is to persuade our young people, the next generation, that the Union works for them The way we did it in 1970 is not the way we will do it now in 2024, or in 2030, or in 2034. It is a prosperous Northern Ireland—a Northern Ireland that delivers jobs for our young people, and ensures that they have the best education and the best start in life—that will deliver support for the Union. That is fundamentally and vitally important.
The signs are good in that regard. Today Northern Ireland has less unemployment than any other region in the United Kingdom outside London, which is an impressive indicator of the extent to which it has moved forward from the days when unemployment was beyond 12% and we had the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom. That is what making Northern Ireland work looks like. Making Northern Ireland work looks like delivering jobs for our young people, driving down unemployment, improving our economy, creating jobs and attracting investment, and the new arrangements that we are introducing give us an opportunity to do that even better in the future.
Those are the arguments that will secure the Union for the future, and Unionism needs to do better. We can be proud of a Northern Ireland that is delivering in terms of its manufacturing industry. One in three aircraft seats in every aircraft across the world is manufactured in Northern Ireland. Every Airbus wing includes components manufactured in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). We have a world-class creative industry, as is clear from the number of new films being produced in Northern Ireland. We have a talented workforce, and the costs of establishing a business in Northern Ireland are 40% lower than those elsewhere. We have unfettered access to the UK internal market, and we have privileged access to the EU single market.
I therefore believe that there is a bright future for Northern Ireland, one in which our economy grows—and as it grows, support for the Union will grow, because who wants to disrupt what is successful? Who wants to move away from what makes Northern Ireland work for all its people? I stand here today with optimism for Northern Ireland, the place that I call home and am proud to come from. Its people have so much potential, and we have an opportunity now to demonstrate potential for all our people.

Jim Shannon: May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend has just said? In the constituency of North Down, which is next to mine and is covered by Ards and North Down Borough Council, there have been 160 business start-ups in the last year. That is an indication of how good our people are, given the opportunity.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. I want to see that prosperity spread across Northern Ireland—to the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), to West Tyrone, to Mid Ulster, to Fermanagh and South Tyrone, to Newry and Armagh, and to South Down—so that Northern Ireland works for everyone.
Another significant point is that 2023 was the first year in my lifetime when no one was recorded as having been murdered in a troubles-related crime. Progress is not just measured in jobs; it is measured in lives—in the lives of our young people who do not today run the risk of being murdered because of their political aspiration or their political perspective. That, too, is a mark of the progress we have made, but we do not take our peace for granted. Cementing the peace also means building prosperity, because a Northern Ireland that works for everyone is a Northern Ireland that will succeed and prosper.
As a confident Unionist, I am very much at home working on matters of mutual concern with our friends and neighbours across the United Kingdom. I am willing to go on co-operating with our neighbours on the island that we share, our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. I simply ask of them that they too respect the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, and recognise that our co-operation is about working together, so we both an benefit from the prosperity that I believe can come. As a Unionist by conviction, I want to see Northern Ireland playing its full part in the economic life and the economic success of this United Kingdom. I believe in this United Kingdom, and I believe that Northern Ireland has a bright place and a bright future in the Union.

Stephen Farry: I apologise for my voice being a bit croaky; I might have to give up slightly earlier than planned. We will see how it goes.
I want to stress that a lot of people in Northern Ireland, including members of my party, have shown enormous patience and pragmatism, especially over the past two years, during which the Assembly has not met. I recognise the efforts made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) to get his party back into institutions, but we have to recognise that enormous damage was done during the two-year suspension, as it was whenever Sinn Féin took the institutions down previously. We have a lot of work to do to undo the damage that has been done, as well as build for the future. Hopefully, we can find consensus tonight on the importance of Northern Ireland having a prosperous future.
I do not want to linger on this point, but Brexit is the original sin behind the problems that Northern Ireland has had over the past seven or eight years. We have had the common theme of trying to find various mechanisms through which we can address the particular challenges posed in Northern Ireland, and of putting in place special arrangements. I hope that the Windsor framework, albeit with modifications in its implementation, can provide a degree of stability, but there is a wider point to be made about the future: the closer the UK and the European Union are aligned with each other, the less the impact of difference will be across the Irish Sea, whether we are talking about any residual checks that  take place or tensions that arise about standards and regulation. Although I hope that we are closing this phase of the Brexit wars, particularly as applied to Northern Ireland, we still need to address how the UK and the European Union can find a better working relationship over the coming years. I say that while maintaining my own and my party’s aspiration that one day we will return to the European Union—and, perhaps even before that, the single market and the customs union.
As for our approach to what has happened, we have given the DUP and the Government a considerable amount of space, and recognised that there were issues that they had to work through to get to this point. Equally, we have to recognise that we have had a one-sided political negotiation in Northern Ireland, which is at odds with practice over the 25 years since the Good Friday agreement and, indeed, before that. We were pragmatic in that regard, provided we saw a situation that would not damage the Good Friday agreement, that no damage would be done to Northern Ireland’s dual-market access to both the UK and wider EU markets, and that the parties were kept informed. On all three of those tests, there are some issues that we need to air, which arise from the Command Paper.
We have been careful not to destabilise the restoration of the Good Friday institutions earlier this month, and tonight is perhaps a better opportunity to articulate some of the relevant points, rather than our rocking the boat at an earlier stage. In many respects, the Command Paper has no legal effect, and we are careful not to get too wound up about it. For some, it could be characterised as a glorified press release, but there are measures in it that may cause us all concern, and their implementation will be critical. Aspects of the language are one-sided and loaded, which perhaps points to wider issues of mindset that pose some concerns. Let me give the House a few examples.
Like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I am concerned about the marginalisation of the duty to have due regard to the all-island economy in legislation. Removing those words from law does not, in itself, erase the reality of an all-island economy, but there is the danger of a change of mindset leading to missed opportunities. I would be very wary of a situation whereby we falsely set the UK economy against the all-island economy; the two can operate in perfect harmony and complement each other. Of course, the all-island economy is different from the UK economy, because there are separate jurisdictions in the all-island economy. Obviously, there are differences around tax, regulation and governance—just to give a few examples. However, Northern Ireland is in a situation where sales and supply chains operate on both an east-west and a north-south basis, and the all-island economy exists as a concept above and beyond Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market.
A clear example of that is the existence of InterTradeIreland, which the Command Paper mirrors with the creation of Intertrade UK. Another is the fact that we have the single electricity market on the island, which has been one of the great success stories of north-south co-operation. That was not even envisaged in the Good Friday agreement, but happened afterwards through sheer pragmatism and the recognition of reality, including by DUP Economy Ministers at the time. We also have the reality of agrifood movements; we have  some highly intricate arrangements on the island in that regard. If we end up in a situation where we do not give due regard to the all-island economy, we may end up missing opportunities to drive Northern Ireland’s prosperity, because we have to be open to all economic opportunities that come our way, irrespective of their characteristics. That is a particular danger in relation to the Stormont brake, which I will come to in a moment.
I recognise that European Union law is an issue of contention for many people in this House. For me, it is not remotely threatening whatsoever. I want to actively embrace it, because it is key to Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market. We should not be running away from EU law, which is there to safeguard labour rights, consumer protection, environmental protection and other related areas. Companies want to have certainty on those issues for the environment in which they are operating, and those that export in particular want to have the ability to operate to the standards of their largest export markets in any event—so this is not a matter that the business community is raising concerns about.
I appreciate that in the long run, the Stormont brake may not actually change that much about Northern Ireland’s adherence to EU law. If, however, we find ourselves in a situation whereby there is either a delay or some other form of uncertainty in the applicability of updated EU law in Northern Ireland, it may create an issue for some inward investors into Northern Ireland, who rely on certainty about regulations, particularly in highly regulated areas—for example, pharmaceuticals. If we want to fully capitalise on our dual market access, we need to be very careful not to hollow that out from within by playing political games around the Stormont brake. We will reserve judgment to see how that works in practice but, on paper, it causes us some considerable concerns at this stage.
Going forward, it is important that we see a change of gear from the Government in how they engage with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and that they try to address some of the friction that has built up with the Irish Government in recent months. I appreciate that there are two sides to every argument, but those issues need to be overcome if we are to make the most of this new beginning for Northern Ireland.
A greater level of transparency and co-operation with all the political parties will be crucial for the implementation of any measures that arise from the Command Paper. In that regard, not every item mentioned in the Command Paper directly relates to the seven tests that the DUP set out in its reasons for not being part of the Executive. We have seen some mission creep in some of the commitments that have been made. We have touched on a broad spectrum of issues in Northern Ireland on which there has not been proper engagement with all the political parties, but the Government are under a duty to ensure proper fairness in that regard.
Regarding some of the constitutional stuff that has been mentioned, I too am happy to put on record that I do not believe that joint authority is part of the Good Friday agreement. It is a choice between Northern Ireland being a part of a single UK or part of a single united Ireland. Within those structures we can come up with different arrangements, including a federal Ireland or devolution within the context of the UK, but those are the two choices available. That does not mean that the Irish Government are not a partner in the peace process.  Indeed, they need to be an active participant in some aspects of the discussions relating to Northern Ireland. There are also issues in relation to the East-West Council and how that is going to be reconciled with the British-Irish Council. That is an institution under the Good Friday agreement, whereas the East-West Council is not. How will that be reconciled? The Government need to clarify some of these points.
The point has been made that if people want to secure the Union—that may well be the intention of a majority of people in Northern Ireland at present—the best way of doing so is to ensure that Northern Ireland works. That mean having functioning and effective political institutions. It also means equality within Northern Ireland and respect for all traditions. At the moment the jury is out in that regard. Over the past six or seven years, Brexit has resulted in a major reassessment of people’s identities and potential aspirations, and while opinion polls are pointing in a clear direction at present, I think people would be overly complacent not to read beneath the surface and see the degree of concern about the things have happened in recent times and the reactions to them.

Gavin Robinson: The hon. Member has spoken for over 10 minutes and he has raised concern after concern about the content of the “Safeguarding the Union” document, but not once has he reflected on the concerns of Unionists about the encroachment on our place within this United Kingdom as a result of what he was asking to be rigorously implemented. I am hoping that at some stage there will be space for that in this debate. Does he recognise that the wrong choice over the last number of years was to dismiss and demean the concerns raised by his neighbours and that if he and his colleagues had not done that, there might have been a more rational, sensible and pragmatic recognition of the problems and of the collective desire to address them? The only reason that the product of what we are debating this evening was not agreed collectively was that for too many years he and his colleagues dismissed those of us who raised legitimate concerns.

Stephen Farry: I am grateful to the Member for his intervention because it has allowed me to have a good drink to ease my throat. He raises some interesting questions which will allow me to clarify those points. I was not going to rake over old coals too much this evening but he invites me to do so.
Let me be clear: my party has always taken a pragmatic approach to special arrangements within Northern Ireland. We recognised, whenever Brexit was imposed on a society that already works through sharing and interdependence, that that situation was going to have to be carefully managed. I did not want to see any checks introduced anywhere on these islands as a consequence of that, but that was always going to be a reality in the context of a hard Brexit. Hopefully the current hard Brexit can be softened over time, which will help in that respect. In so far as those checks can be minimised, I am all for that. Our party has never stood in the way of that particular outcome.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made reference to the phrase “rigorous implementation”, although we have now heard about  the vigorous implementation of the Command Paper from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). That phrase relates to a letter that was signed by four parties in September 2021 in the context of attempts by the UK Government to unilaterally breach international law. Our position all along has been that modifications to the protocol, right through to what we have today in the Windsor framework, need to be negotiated, where appropriate, between the UK Government and the European Union as the signatories to the new arrangements, and that they have to be legal.
In that context our position has always been consistent. We are a party of law. We are committed to implementing the law where we are required to implement the law, but where the law can be changed through proper process, we are all for that. What we were always against—and remain against—is unilateral action that puts Northern Ireland in a worse position because it undermines trust. The big game changer was when we had a change of Government in the autumn of 2022. All of a sudden the European Union and the UK Government started talking to each other and things started moving really quickly.
I would say that the result that we have today could have been found much earlier if we had had a lot more trust in the process between the European Union and the UK Government—and I certainly did not justify or require the Assembly to be down for two years, causing chaos in Northern Ireland’s public services and a huge number of missed opportunities. My party has always been clear that we want to see things such as the red and green lanes introduced, which was achieved through the Windsor framework. We have also consistently proposed a veterinary agreement, which I would remind the hon. Member for Belfast East that his party initially opposed whenever we put it forward.

Gavin Robinson: indicated dissent.

Stephen Farry: Questions were asked in the Northern Ireland Assembly and DUP Ministers said they were opposed, including the former leader of the DUP. I am happy to give way to the Member again so I can have another drink.

Gavin Robinson: The hon. Member should have another sip from that cup, although I am not sure it is working. What we did oppose was the understanding that all veterinary medicines would be available in Northern Ireland through an EU prism—an EU regime. What we have proposed—and what continues to be a part of this Command Paper with the Government’s indication that they will publish unilateral action come the springtime should agreement not be reached—is a recognition of mutual standards: mutual recognition. The hon. Member should recognise the statutory instruments that this House and the other place passed three weeks ago on a goods guarantee and mutual recognition—two things that I believe he and his colleagues might have described as unicorns.

Stephen Farry: The Member is conflating a veterinary agreement with the issue of veterinary medicines. There is an issue with veterinary medicines that needs to be properly addressed, but the issue of a wider veterinary agreement was something that the DUP opposed—a wider sanitary and phytosanitary agreement between  the UK and the European Union that would free up bureaucracy relating to the movement of agrifood products. That would obviously have a direct benefit in terms of the Irish sea, but it is fundamentally in the interests of the whole UK agrifood sector to address some of the bureaucracy that is increasingly coming to the fore and causing frustration for many businesses. Indeed, perhaps at some point we will have a discussion around the “not for EU” labelling issue, which is also causing major concerns for businesses across the UK but is being driven by this particular process.
I appreciate that the Member and his party are keen to have this narrative about “We have achieved this and we have achieved that”, and I am not to trying to burst their bubble too much, but the reality is that there will still be a degree of checks across the Irish sea. Whether they are done on a risk basis or whether we have a red channel for that, the reality is that there will have to be some management of that Irish sea interface, including the registration of the businesses involved. Those are all products of the fact that we have a hard Brexit, and that we have to manage those tensions. I am delighted that we have got them down as far as we have but, equally, we need to be frank and honest that there are certain parameters beyond which people cannot go.
I was not necessarily planning to have as big a row with the DUP as has unfolded tonight, but I have some comments for the Government on the way forward. We are getting a clear narrative that the Government are committed to making Northern Ireland work. We all share that commitment, and we want to see prosperity.
I have three points for the Government, and hopefully the DUP will agree with some of what I say. First, revenue raising was clearly meant to be part of the wider transformation plan required for the Executive to pay off what was packaged as their debt. Of course, that debt would not have arisen if we had a proper fiscal flow. I freely acknowledge that the Executive will have to address revenue raising, but there is a danger that they will rush to address revenue raising in the coming months while they are still trying to find their feet and address wider financial issues, which could cause difficulties within the Executive. Of course, we should address revenue raising, but let us not rush headlong into it. A figure of £113 million is not insignificant, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with a £14 billion-plus revenue budget. There are much bigger decisions to be made on health and education reform, which the Executive need to be encouraged to address, rather than clashing over £113 million.
Secondly, Casement Park is an important issue for the Euros in 2028, but it is a wider, totemic issue for a section of the community in Northern Ireland. I will not go into exactly what the UK Government have to do, but they are a player. Commitments have been made on their support for this overall project. The clock is clearly ticking, so there is a degree of urgency. The issue is now being escalated as a potential political confrontation point, which may pose problems to the restored Executive. With all the caveats about value for money that the Government have to consider, they should be clear, as soon as possible, about what they can do so that the project can move ahead.
Thirdly, the repackaged Fresh Start money is above and beyond the £3.3 billion package for the restored Executive. That fund was already part of the transformation  fund for shared and, in particular, integrated education. We now have a situation in which 10 schools, at different levels of development, for integrated education—which, to be fair, the Government have embraced over many years—are now placed in jeopardy. To me, that is not only a step back from integration and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, but it is at odds with the objective of transformation. I urge the Government to reconsider how the Executive handle the £150 million of repurposed Fresh Start funding. Again, the Government agreed the package during a previous political crisis in Northern Ireland.
I have spoken for far longer than I anticipated. I recognise that Northern Ireland is in a much better place with a restored Executive and a restored Assembly, and I recognise that a lot of good work has been done to address a number of critical issues, but there are still bumps on the road ahead. My central appeal is that the Government work more closely with all the political parties to ensure that what they have set out is implemented fairly and transparently, and to ensure that all concerns and input are fully taken into account.

Sammy Wilson: I think many people in North Down, a Unionist constituency, will be wondering what kind of representative they have. The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) was probably a good proxy for a Sinn Féin representative in his disregard for Unionists’ concerns about the protocol and in his unwillingness to apologise for the fact that he and his party wanted the Government to double down on the protocol, despite the damage it was causing. His party said during the negotiations that they had negotiated a wonderful package. There is still underfunding because of how the funding formula is applied in Northern Ireland, yet the only plea he made for additional funding this evening was to pay for Casement Park. The Gaelic Athletic Association has said that it will not give one penny more to that stadium. The GAA expects the UK Government to divvy up for its state-of-the-art stadium.
The Humble Address tells His Majesty of this Parliament’s commitments in respect of a number of issues. Significantly, it has been brought forward because of the way in which successive Prime Ministers from the Conservative and Unionist party have betrayed Northern Ireland by choosing to side with the EU, and not to annoy the EU, even if that means weakening the Union of the United Kingdom. The sad reality is that these reassuring words, which the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) described as a “love letter” to Unionists—when we look at it, we will see that it is not such a love letter—are essential because of the trust that has been broken by a Government who were quite happy to hand Northern Ireland over to the European Union as a vassal state, to use the term of the former Prime Minister who was responsible for some of the damage done.
A number of issues are addressed in the Humble Address, and the first is to affirm the importance of upholding all the strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Why is that necessary? The reason, of course, is because this Government acted at the behest of the European Union, which required that the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom be weakened, with any attempt to address that situation being thwarted by changing the voting arrangements in the Assembly.
We already knew that Northern Ireland was not all that important to this Government, because the whole principle of consent to change Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom was simply ignored. The damage has been done, and there has been no attempt to undo that damage. The Belfast agreement made it clear that any change—any change—to Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom could happen only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That change took place when the UK Government agreed that the EU would have the ability, in 300 areas of law, to make laws for Northern Ireland, and that Northern Ireland’s representatives would have no say in the making of those laws.
In fact, the only country on the island of Ireland that would have a say is the Republic of Ireland, because of its membership of the EU. The EU and the Irish Republic would have the ability to make laws in relation to Northern Ireland in 300 areas of law and Northern Ireland politicians elected to the Assembly would have no say. The hon. Member for North Down might be happy that his party members are elected to an Assembly and have no say on a raft of areas of law.

Stephen Farry: We are relaxed about EU law, but the thing we were certainly not relaxed about was not having an Assembly whatsoever for the past two years. Anyone who wants to talk about democratic deficits needs to refocus away from the technicalities of EU law and on the fact that no one was in charge of health, education and the economy for the past two years and on the damage that has been done. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will show some humility and recognise his role and that of his party in the chaos that has been forced upon Northern Ireland in the past two years, when they have taken their time negotiating this new arrangement with the Government.

Sammy Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman’s stance not amazing? He talks about the democratic deficit that existed for two years while the Assembly was not operating, but he is happy to have a democratic deficit that will last for decades as a result of the arrangement in place now. So he cannot now get concerned about the inability of politicians in Northern Ireland to do something. We had the two years of Stormont not operating because the principle on which it was bound to operate—that there had to be consent and the views of nationalists and Unionists had to be taken into consideration—had been simply wiped aside; it could not have worked anyway because the very foundation of the Belfast agreement had been removed.
I have to ask the Minister: how can the Government affirm the Belfast agreement when we have in place today arrangements that came about only because one of the central principles of the agreement had been removed? Of course, this is about looking at not just the past, but the future. The Assembly will have a decision to make and it will have a vote at the end of this year on the arrangements that are in place. That vote will be very controversial, because it looks both back and forward. First, were the arrangements put in place acceptable? Far more importantly, will the arrangements going forward be acceptable? The vote will not simply  be about EU law, because in four years’ time nobody who is taking part in this vote will even know about the EU laws; this vote will be about whether the Assembly is going to continue having the Republic of Ireland and the EU making laws that are unknown and that we will have no say in formulating in the future. There can be no more controversial vote than that, yet the Belfast agreement says that a vote of that nature should not be made on a majority basis.
Since 1972, votes and issues that were controversial could not be made on a majority basis in Northern Ireland. Yet here is one of the most controversial votes that the Northern Ireland Assembly will be involved in, and the Government, at the behest or demand of the Irish Republic and the EU, set aside the requirement for cross-community support in that vote. So the Minister is today proposing a motion that affirms
“the importance of upholding the Belfast…Agreement”,
knowing full well that he has agreed to and defended, and will continue to put in place, arrangements that undermine the very principle of consent for a most controversial issue, on which a vote will take place at the end of this year. So when we address His Majesty and say that we are affirming the Belfast agreement, we have to look at the way we have dispensed with its central provision in the past and the way we are going to remove the ability to use the consent principle in the future on one of the most controversial issues.
Secondly, the Humble Address acknowledges
“the foundational importance of the Acts of Union”.
I find it strange that it acknowledges not just the Acts of Union but their “foundational importance”, because in the court case taken against the Northern Ireland protocol, the Government’s lawyers said that when the House voted for the withdrawal agreement, we had implied the disapplication of article VI of the Act of Union. The courts ruled that article VI, which contains the foundational economic rights, had been suspended, and they have not been unsuspended. Why were they suspended? It was because, as a result of the EU being given the say to make laws in respect of Northern Ireland, there had to be some impediments to trade between GB and Northern Ireland.
The shadow spokesman talked about how even under the Act of Union there were impediments to trade, and he is right. However, there is one fundamental difference: those impediments were put in place and were decided upon by Administrations within the UK, because they saw that an advantage was created. The difference now is that the Act of Union and its foundational economic rights have been suspended because the EU demands that that is the case. Now, as Northern Ireland is part of the single market, the EU requires certain restrictions and checks to be put in place. A further irony is that those restrictions in place, even with the new arrangements, are far more intrusive and far more difficult hurdles to overcome when it comes to trade between GB and Northern Ireland than they would be for trade between France and GB or Germany and GB. That is what has put so many people off trading with Northern Ireland. The Government are now going to say to them all that they should come back to the Northern Ireland market—the shadow spokesman talked about the way in which trade had been diverted—but that is a conscious decision that firms have made because of the difficulties in bringing goods into Northern Ireland from GB.

Hilary Benn: On the issues about which the right hon. Gentleman complains, it pains me to say it but they were put in place because the House of Commons voted to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is not correct to say that they are enforced upon Northern Ireland by the EU of its own volition; they were arrangements that the House decided should be put in place because the people of the UK had voted to leave the European Union. That, too, is a fact.

Sammy Wilson: That vote was made in this House on two grounds. First, the EU made its terms clear and we had a spineless Government that were prepared to bow to it, saying that if those arrangements were not put in place, there would be no deal. Weighing up the impact that might have on the rest of the United Kingdom and the impact it would have on Northern Ireland, the Government decided that Northern Ireland would be the sacrificial lamb. Secondly, we were told at that time, as was this House and businesses in Northern Ireland, “Don’t worry,” and were promised, “You’ll get some bits of paper but just tear them up, or give the Prime Minister a ring and he’ll make sure you don’t have to worry about them.” I accept that the decision was made by this House, but it was made on that basis, and the fact is it still had a detrimental impact on Northern Ireland.
Changes have been made by the Windsor framework, the Northern Ireland protocol and the “Safeguarding the Union” document, but the economic foundational importance of the Act of Union is still being undermined. We are told that 20% of goods still have to go through a red lane. Most of those goods go to manufacturing businesses or distributors in Northern Ireland, in many cases because they are parts of products that will eventually be sold. The businesses will still be subject to checks because the product has not been made—it is only parts coming in—and because of the eventual destination of the products, even though most businesses can say, “Look, we sell in Northern Ireland, outside EU or to GB”.
I spoke to a businessman this morning who informed me that the situation is going to get worse. The paperwork for the last order he got for goods coming through the red lane took six hours. When people are working on very thin margins, that additional work makes them question whether to invest further in Northern Ireland or to jump over the border to the Irish Republic, so the red lane requirements have a huge economic impact.
Even the UK internal market requirements are at the gift of the EU, because the EU still has control of trade that comes from GB into Northern Ireland through regulations 2023/1231 and 2023/1128. If the EU deems at any stage that the arrangements for the internal market lane do not meet its requirements, the ultimate say as to what happens to those movements of trade will remain with the EU and it can go back to the default position with 100% checks. I note that those two regulations have not been removed by the EU as a result of “Safeguarding the Union”. The EU still holds that control, which is worrying for businesses in Northern Ireland. The Humble Address is all about telling His Majesty that the foundational importance of the Act of Union will be respected and is being respected by the Government, but that is just not true.
My final point is about the part of the Humble Address that says that
“executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.”
There is no definition of “joint authority”. In the past, Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and told us there has been no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol and the Windsor framework, and Northern Ireland was still fully part of the United Kingdom. Words can mean whatever they want, it seems, when the Government find themselves challenged by the agreement they have made with the EU.
I trust that the Government will not accede to some of the demands that have been made. In his intervention, the hon. Member for North Down said that he wanted a review of the Belfast agreement. That would open all kinds of doors. If he had his way, the review would be based on a majority view of what should happen in the future. The removal of the consent principle and the majority vote in the Assembly is what he and his friends in Sinn Féin and the SDLP are aiming for now. Unionists are now a minority, so majoritarianism is no longer a problem.

Robin Millar: I have listened with great interest to many of the points made. I am particularly taken by the attention the hon. Gentleman has given to the foundational importance of constitutional matters, which exercises many hon. Members on the Government Benches. Does he agree that it seems incongruous that changes to constitutional law—not primary legislation, but constitutional law—were made in this Chamber through the use of statutory instruments? We had to seek an extension to secure 180 minutes of debate on those measures. Does he agree with many Conservative Members that matters of constitutional law should be treated with proper respect and subjected to proper debate and scrutiny by this House before they are changed?

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. When we agreed to the withdrawal agreement and legislation, the Act of Union was changed without Ministers even mentioning that that was happening. They used that defence in court later on. A couple of weeks ago, when we discussed protecting Northern Ireland-GB trade and protecting against the threat of a further wedge being driven between Northern Ireland and GB as a result of changes in the law made in this place, we got 90 minutes to discuss those changes and not a great deal of time to scrutinise them. At the end of the debate the Minister had about three minutes to sum up, which did not give him time to answer any of the questions that had been asked.

Gavin Robinson: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is not right. The Government did not make the argument after the fact that article 6 had been impliedly repealed or subsequently found by the court to be temporarily suspended—I raised the question in the House of the Minister before the legislation passed and they had not a clue what was being asked of them. The notion that this Parliament chose to proceed along a path that was encroaching on article 6 is not right because it was asked and it was answered negatively by Ministers at   the time. We scrutinised. We raised the constitutional importance of the actions they were taking. It was the Government who denied that was the case.

Sammy Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. In all the discussions he has used his knowledge of the issues. If we have a Government who simply ignored the points that he made, either because they did not know or did not want others to know, that makes it even more disgraceful. That is why when we have a Humble Address, it is right that we scrutinise, ask questions and raise issues about what exactly is meant by the promises made to His Majesty and the people of Northern Ireland. Sadly, I do not believe that what has been said or the promises that have already been made address the issues. If we are going to address the issue of keeping Northern Ireland firmly within the United Kingdom, the Windsor framework has to go and the principle of consent has to be restored. The people of Northern Ireland and elected representatives in Northern Ireland must have the ability to make the laws that they are elected to make.

Nigel Evans: Order. As Members know, we had two significant statements after departmental questions, and it is likely that this debate will go for another hour. A significant number of people put their name down for the general debate on farming that was to follow. That will now be rescheduled, and Members will be told in the usual manner when that debate will take place.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) says that a glorified press release is in front of us tonight. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is no longer in his place, said that a love letter to the Democratic Unionist party has been penned. They say that is all it is, yet they still protest. They protest if Unionists get as much as a nod and a wink. They still object to it. It should not have been done, they say. Unionists should get nothing out of this place. That is the import of their comments. Or perhaps the hon. Members for North Down and for Foyle protest too much. Perhaps the real issue is that they do not like anything done that gives Unionism a nod or a wink, an advantage, or recognition of our rights. Their objections are perhaps strongest to the latter.
Points have been raised this evening about the future of Casement Park. I was not going to mention it, but as it has been put on the agenda, I think I will. Most people listened with consternation this morning to the words of Jarlath Burns, the leader of the Gaelic Athletic Association, who said, “Not a penny more will come from the GAA for Casement Park”—not even on grounds of inflation. It is £15 million or nothing from the GAA. That has to be a significant body blow to the future of Casement Park. The Northern Ireland Executive may indicate that they will give an inflation-related piece of money—significant money—to that project. The Government of Dublin may indicate that they will give multiples of millions to that project. Yet the GAA will not even give the project an inflation-linked amount. That suggests to me that perhaps the GAA does not  want Casement Park to go ahead, and that it is looking for someone or for some group to blame. [Interruption.] I hear the giggles and fits coming from the SNP Benches, but of course it is very easy to spend other people’s money. This project now looks as if it will be short by about £100 million.
Tonight, I have heard that we should really be able to wipe out the “not insignificant”—I think that was the comment—£113 million in Executive funding that has been asked for, yet the big ask is: “We’d better have this money made available for Casement Park,” no matter what the amount is. That is amazing. Not only do we have a demand for this money, but it is almost as if the point being made is, “If you don’t give us that money, there will be a crisis.” That seems to be the way that the comment was framed to the House this evening. Most people will reflect very sombrely on the comments made by Jarlath Burns, and by others inside and outside this House who have made it clear that the money must be made available or else. But things can no longer work that way. Difficult decisions need to be made, and I suspect that the decisions that will be made very soon about Casement Park will be incredibly difficult. The way the parties respond to those difficult decisions will be the measure of those parties.
The Minister was taken down a rabbit hole tonight by the hon. Member for Foyle, who, again, is no longer in his place. Perhaps he has decided to go back to Foyle, given the terrible issue at Seagate and the loss of 300 jobs. I hope that he is working hard to get those jobs back, because they are very significant. Perhaps Mr Kennedy, the envoy, will turn up with a cheque book and the trillions of pounds that he said were available for Northern Ireland—it would be amazing if he did. Perhaps that money from America will arrive and those jobs, which are very important to the area, will be saved.
To return to my point, the Minister was taken down a rabbit hole and was asked to confirm whether, in line with the terms of the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there would be a simple majority vote for the future of Northern Ireland, but of course that is not in the Act. It talks about a majority vote; it does not define what that majority is—if it is a majority of the people, or a majority of the people who vote. In fact, I believe that the definition has been left open purposefully, so that Parliament will have a say on the terms and conditions. The Minister, referring to previous referendums in this country, has already conceded that a small majority is not the way to make major constitutional change in this nation. If he believes that, he will certainly believe that for the outworkings of the Belfast agreement. He shares the position of the late Seamus Mallon, one of the negotiators of the Belfast agreement, who made it clear that there had to be a “clear majority”, in his words, for a change to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We should avoid going down these rabbit holes; we need to recognise the importance of what this House is debating tonight, and why we are debating it.
The objective of every Unionist is to undo the damage done by the great betrayal made by the Government of a former Prime Minister when they agreed the protocol on Northern Ireland. That was done against the advice of the Unionists. Unionists on these Benches, myself included, met the then Prime Minister and implored him not to go down the road of a protocol. He said that  things would all be sorted out. He came to County Antrim and told farmers not to worry, “because all this can be shredded.” He told them that we can ignore it, and that we can throw the bits of paper in the bin. Of course, as it transpired, the Prime Minister’s betrayal of Northern Ireland has left us still debating this issue two years later. Untold damage has been done to the psychological view of where those in the Union are, as a people. Responsibility for the economic position of the kingdom lies four-square at that Government’s feet, and it is important that they undo that damage.
I agree with the leader of our party that, after much diligence, we have before us a work in progress. Yes, much more must be done. Today’s Humble Address must be seen in the context of more needing to be done, but the fact is that whenever we give a hint that we want more progress and more stability, we cannot even have that. That seems to be the cry from the nationalists. Nationalism has to grow up and recognise that it cannot go on baiting and pushing at Unionism, because that is wrong.
Until the laws promised by this strengthening of the Union are operational in Northern Ireland, problems will remain for Northern Ireland trade. That is why I urge the Government to hurry up, and get on with implementing the changes that they have said are coming; otherwise more divergence is threatened. We must avoid divergence. It remains a threat and an ever-present danger to the Union, which is why the sooner the Government legislate and move on these issues, the better. Unionists have a history that means that we always have to remain vigilant.
As this is a work in progress, and as the Government, in previous utterances from the Dispatch Box, have conceded that more legislation is to follow, it would be worth while for them to state that again from the Dispatch Box this evening. They cannot expect one party in Northern Ireland to do all the heavy lifting. Will the Government therefore spell out when further actions will be put on the calendar? When will we see those further actions? In conversations with my party colleagues and party leader, we have already discussed the necessity of implementing what has been promised, and the need to make more progress. It is okay us talking about it, but the Government have to take action.
Our constituents already feel the vice-like pinch of the protocol and the framework on their businesses, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) outlined. I intend to put on the record some examples that really perplex me and should have been resolved by the Government, and which underline the ongoing damage to our UK single market trade—our largest market by far.
My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and I have challenged senior civil servants in Northern Ireland over why the frictions continue when this place has spelled out that they ought to have been removed. Northern Ireland businesses are right to be impatient. We demand progress. We cannot live on the promise that a change is coming—the promise of jam tomorrow. We and this House demand actions now.
We urge the Government not to lose the momentum for change, and I therefore ask the following questions. When will the veterinary medicines working group be established, and when will it commence work? That is an urgent priority for our single largest sector. When will  the plant working group be established? The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised that urgent matter. When will InterTradeIreland be established? What date is pencilled in and calendared for that important body to start operations?
What instructions have been given to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland to progress the changes for goods flowing from GB to Northern Ireland? I ask because I know of several companies in my constituency and elsewhere in Northern Ireland that are being held back by these frictions. A constituent with a very small businesses that orders plants from an English wholesaler came to my office this week and said that she has been told, “Go elsewhere. Try somewhere else. Don’t buy from the United Kingdom.” As her MP, I volunteered to bring that stock—those samples and seeds—over in my hand luggage if she so requires, and dear help the official who tries to stop me.

Gregory Campbell: My hon. Friend talks about bringing material over himself. Can he imagine the incredulity of citizens of Northern Ireland who hear about the situation? They will say, “What possible risk could that pose to the EU internal market?”.

Ian Paisley Jnr: My hon. Friend makes his point well; there is zero risk to the European single market. In the same way, there is zero risk with veterinary medicines—the Secretary of State knows that well, because I have discussed the matter with him—because we are talking about the same medicine as before. Europe does not want the medicines changed—shock, horror. It just wants the label changed, but for that to happen, it is demanding that the pharmaceutical companies rescale and re-examine what is in every product, which would costs millions of pounds, and would not be worth it for the companies. It is the same with biscuits. The leader of my party today met a company that has been required to do certain labelling. The EU is not trying to change the content or recipe of the biscuits; it is trying to change the label, because the single market might be damaged by the wrong label. That is how “bent bananas”, “squared cucumbers”, this argument is. We should have left that behind long ago.
The owner of a haulage business in my constituency has had the number of checks on his consignments go from nine per month in August last year to—wait for it—27 in the last two weeks of this month, and we are still moving towards the last couple of days of February. That is the record for the number of checks he has undergone since the protocol was put in place. Once again, will the Government look at this over-zealous Department, DAERA, which looks like it will not undo what this House said has is to be undone, as was outlined in a previous debate?
I mentioned a constituent who is trying to buy scanners for a service sector industry. He has always bought the scanners from GB, and he has been told that he must have an economic operators registration and identification number. That number means that VAT is paid in the Republic of Ireland, but my constituent does not trade in the Republic of Ireland. He is being denied the ability to buy equipment from GB because some official here is saying, “No, you must have an EROI number, and you must put GB in front of it.” That does not exist, and it is appalling that he has been put in that position.

Steven Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr: I will. I am delighted that the Minister wants to intervene.

Steven Baker: I cannot wait for my closing speech so I can say to the hon. Gentleman, “Please, give us all these examples in full detail in writing.” I will be very pleased indeed to have my officials go through them with a fine-toothed comb and see what can be done in absolutely every case. As has been said time and again, work will continue to be done to improve matters. I am yearning for the full detail so that we can work on it.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I like the Minister’s enthusiasm, but may I say that I am ahead of him? The leader of my party and I have already met officials and discussed these issues with them. We have put them to the Cabinet Office, which I understand is the proper channel. I hope the Cabinet Office includes the Minister so he can get his teeth into these matters and deliver for me, my party leader and my colleagues on the issues that perplex us so much.

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but last Monday was my first day as a joint Cabinet Office and Northern Ireland Office Minister, precisely so I can assist officials with some ministerial work.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Minister, I congratulate you on your promotion, but I commiserate with you because you will be dealing more and more with me and my colleagues. We will test you to the nth degree—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is not testing me.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I apologise for my enthusiasm, Madam Deputy Speaker; we will test the Minister to the nth degree.
I want to make a point about whiskey, not because the hour is late but because it is an important point. A point was made about tariffs, and a certain whiskey company in my constituency was mentioned—I think it probably dreads being mentioned, because it just wants to get on with trade. Any tariffs of the sort that came into effect in 1801, imposed on Bushmills whiskey by the Acts of Union, were actually removed at a very important historical juncture for this nation. They were removed in 1879 during—guess what?—the great home rule debates, in order to calm things down. Maybe, just maybe, we need to learn that lesson from history, and remove these borders and the problems that have been put in place, in order to calm things down. If we learn that lesson from history, that whiskey company in my constituency—the premier whiskey constituency and whiskey company in the whole British Isles—will continue to do exceptionally well.
I should say for the record that not a single additional tariff has been placed on whiskey throughout the whole period of the protocol, so there is nothing to be removed. The history is incredibly interesting. Tariffs on Irish whiskey were brought in in the 1600s because it was the most successful product made on the entire island of Ireland. Then there was the introduction of what was called the whiskey tax, which became known as the  Parliament tax of 1661. Only companies that paid the tax were registered, so the 1,200 whiskey distilleries across Ireland suddenly became 40. I am not saying the others ceased to exist; they just did the Irish thing of not paying their tax. That was a very important distinction.
Of course, the tax on Irish whiskey was brought in to protect the Scottish market. The fledgling whisky market developed about 40 or 50 years after the Irish whiskey market in the early 1400s. In order to protect the Scottish whisky market, the Parliament here decided to engage in protectionism of its Scottish market. I am glad that that was removed—it ought to have been—allowing the Northern Irish whiskey trade to continue to flourish, particularly given that it is a much better product and is spelled correctly.
I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the several questions that I have asked. I urge him to deliver action, not just big words.

Rosie Winterton: Before I bring in the next speaker, I should say that I want to ensure that the Minister has at least 10 minutes to wind up. If the remaining speakers kept to about 10 minutes each, that would do the trick. I call Carla Lockhart.

Carla Lockhart: In my approach to the Humble Address, I hope it is in order, by way of introduction, to comment on the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper. It has been a very wide-ranging debate, so I assume that that is appropriate.
I acknowledge those within my party who have worked hard to improve the unacceptable situation that we found ourselves in. I welcome provisions including, among other things, the monitoring committee, the East-West Council, the new provisions on rest-of-world products, and the UK Government’s commitment to stand by Northern Ireland in the absence of a resolution on veterinary medicines. The DUP has unfortunately had to take steps, for which it is often criticised, to address the far-reaching implications of the protocol. We have often been blamed for many of the problems that have flowed from that unforgivable move on the part of our Government back when the iniquitous protocol was implemented. I welcome the improvements but, as has been said, there remains much work to be done. I, along with colleagues on the DUP Bench, am all too aware of the work that lies ahead.
I, too, take this opportunity to raise issues of which the Secretary of State will be very aware, including horse movements from GB to Northern Ireland and vice-versa, rare breeds and plants, and so on. All those issues have been raised with me in my role as agriculture spokesperson. I look forward to the engagement that has been promised and to getting results on those issues.
Part of the answer lies in the text of the Humble Address, which tells us that the economic provisions provided by article 6 of the Acts of Union are of “foundational importance”. That is absolutely correct. In the 21st century, being part of the same country means being part of the same internal market, which means that goods can flow freely within it without encountering border control posts, demanding customs, and SPS paperwork and checks that increase costs and  can make the difference between whether a domestic economic venture is viable or has to fall by the wayside. Having the right to border-free access within the internal market of the country of which we are a part is certainly, from the vantage point of today, a basic right of economic citizenship.
The really odd thing about today is that although we are gathered here to affirm that article 6 and the rights that it confers are not only important but are, in the words of the Humble Address, of “foundational importance”, on 8 February 2023, paragraph 68 of the Supreme Court judgment ruled that they are in part suspended. We cannot withdraw, even temporarily, anything that is foundational without inviting the structure that it supports to topple, or ensuring that it does so. Part of the partial suspension of the economics provisions under article 6 results in Northern Ireland being cut off from the rest of the UK through a customs border that has to be crossed, whether it is approached through the red lane or the internal market system.
The alternative border experience for customs that constitutes the UK internal market system is actually defined by the Commission delegated regulation EU 2023/1128, which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to earlier. The formal EU description of that regulation is:
“amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 to provide for simplified customs formalities for trusted traders and for sending parcels into Northern Ireland from another part of the United Kingdom”.
The provisions thus simplify customs formalities, but do not remove them. Rather than removing those movements from the remit of the EU customs code, they have the effect of amending how the EU customs code deals with them.
It is quite extraordinary that the UK Government agree that movements of goods within the United Kingdom should be subject to a border imposed by 27 other states that regulate movements from one part of our country to another through their customs code, regardless of how demanding or undemanding that code is.

Paul Girvan: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. Many goods ordered online and delivered from a GB company make their way into Northern Ireland after being shipped into Dublin at night, so the members of the public who order them have to pay customs to the Republic of Ireland for goods that are to be used within the United Kingdom. That is another area that has not yet been addressed and needs serious consideration.

Carla Lockhart: I thank my hon. Friend for making that valid point. The Minister will, in his new role, be extremely busy in dealing with the many remaining issues.
Some might say, “Well, if the EU sought to change the customs code to increase the demands on trusted traders, we could refuse to accept the change.” That goes to the heart of the matter. If we were prepared to refuse such a change from the EU under those circumstances, why would we accept them under the current circumstances, through arrangements that involve the partial disenfranchisement of 1.9 million UK citizens who can no longer stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject and, under the brake,  must instead make do with the right to stand for election to try to stop laws already made for us by a foreign Parliament?
The truth, as was pointed out in the other place, is that the Windsor framework is an invalid treaty. There are rules about what makes a treaty valid or invalid, and one of the most basic is respect for the territorial integrity of states, which involves states renouncing claims to make the laws of other states. The Windsor framework involves 27 states refusing to recognise the territorial integrity of the UK, seeking to divide our country in two, and then claiming the right to make some of the laws for part of our country. In that context, the UK Government should declare the treaty void, and, acting on the determination set out in this Humble Address, declare that article 6 is of foundational importance, and look for the earliest opportunity for Parliament to un-suspend—and thus fully restore— article 6, so that the people of Northern Ireland are not alienated, however temporarily, from any aspect of this provision, which is, as the Humble Address rightly acknowledges, of “foundational importance”.
Many in Northern Ireland have welcomed the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its ability to deal with health, education and infrastructure. I, for one, will raise many of those issues with our colleagues in the Assembly. I trust that we will see much change in those issues, which have a daily impact. However, we must not paper over the cracks. There remains much work to do. This has been a sensible debate that has allowed many issues to be raised constructively. I look forward to engaging with the Minister on many of these matters.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank all those who have made significant contributions. As a Northern Ireland MP, I am delighted that the position that Northern Ireland is in has been made clear in this House.
Let me make a quick comment about Casement Park—I cannot let it pass by without commenting. As I mentioned to the Secretary of State last week at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the cost is now some £225 million. I understand that about £70 million or £75 million was originally allocated. I suggest that, rather than pursuing a white elephant, for which those who should be making bigger contributions are not doing so, it would be better to disburse that original £70 million across the whole of Northern Ireland, to ensure that all clubs, in whatever sport, get the benefits. That decision will be made by the Assembly, not in this place; I understand that, but we have to look at the bigger picture as well. David Jeffrey had a very interesting article in the newspaper last Saturday in which he suggested that what was before us at Casement Park could not work, because the benefits for all the people would only happen if the funding was disbursed in the way I have described. When it comes to Casement Park, big decisions are being made, and if the GAA is not prepared to go beyond its €17 million or thereabouts, I think it is time that the GAA catches itself on and realises that everybody else would get the benefit. That is what I would like to see.
From the point of view of the party I represent, there was no alternative to bringing down a devolved Administration in order to push for necessary changes  to the Northern Ireland protocol. We did so with a heavy heart, because we believe in devolution. We did so because we felt a huge step was necessary to bring attention to the economic and constitutional damage that was being wrought on Northern Ireland due to the punishing intentions of the EU. We did so knowing that there were many who did not grasp the rationale, and many would refuse to attempt to grasp that rationale. We did it despite the calls of many others who said that the deal was done and could not be altered. We did it, and we proved them wrong. Our leader and deputy leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), did that very directly, and we see the benefits of that—there are negatives, yes, but there are benefits too. Let us focus on those benefits.
The deal could be altered, and it was. The EU could come to terms with the changes, and they did. Our Government could achieve more than the Windsor framework, and they did. Those three things have happened. Let me be entirely clear: the work is not yet achieved. This House will be the place to make those changes. Our leader and other Members who have spoken have said that we will be making changes, and I look forward to working alongside the Secretary of State and Minister of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that the changes that we collectively wish to see can be made, right here in this place. My colleagues in the Assembly will be working to ensure that there are no restrictions to trade within this United Kingdom and that our businesses can operate—that we can receive Amazon deliveries and get our veterinary medication through the committee that is going to be set up for that purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will be actively involved in that.
Turning to our trees and seeds, I understand that 11 of those products have already been agreed. A further 21 are in the pipeline to be agreed, and others will follow, so things are happening. There has also been a very significant reduction in the number of products that will be in the green lane. At the minute, it is 20%; I understand that by September of this year, that figure will drop to 5%, so there are constructive and positive ways forward. I will give the example of a company in Newtownards. The day that our party executive accepted that we would go with the deal, a gentleman who has two shops—one in Ards, one in Bangor—and employs 12 people told me that a company in Manchester supplied him with 300 products for which he had to do over 200 pieces of paperwork. That meant almost 6,000 paper transactions. On the day that our party agreed and the Bill went through here in Westminster, all of that paperwork disappeared, and he can now bring in 300 products without the paperwork. Another person contacted me about pet food: they were told that in three weeks’ time, which is now a week away, all of that pet food will be able to come in. Those are examples of how the deal is working, so let us look at the positives.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Will my hon. Friend join me in also welcoming the communication that both the Secretary of State and myself have received from a very prominent nursery selling plants, trees and shrubs in Northern Ireland? That nursery was at the forefront of the campaign to have the issues and problems recognised,  and since our agreement—since the publication of the Command Paper—it is seeing real improvements in its access to plants, shrubs and trees. Its supply chains have already improved, even before the new measures have been fully implemented.

Jim Shannon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. He is absolutely right: without mentioning them in the House, we all know who that person is and what their company is. They have a number of nurseries, and other nurseries, including those in my constituency of Strangford, will also feel the benefits. We have to look at those positives.
In this House, the voice of Northern Ireland will not be silent when it comes to trying to find a way forward to improve things yet again, and to get more for the people of Northern Ireland from all communities. We need to achieve more in terms of economic drive, an entirely new funding mechanism, and numerous other interventions. At the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last week, the Secretary of State very helpfully referred to the review of the Barnett consequential and a better way of doing that, so that all the people of Northern Ireland can access those moneys.
Those are the facts of the case. Today’s Humble Address does not deal with them, but with an issue that is equally important to many people in Northern Ireland: our constitutional position. For many months, some in the Irish Government and, indeed, on these Benches who tried to browbeat us with the threat of joint authority from Dublin. Newspaper headlines screamed that steps were being taken to ensure that decisions concerning Northern Ireland were made in co-ordination with the Irish Government, all stirring up a people who have never felt more unwelcome within our own nation and, indeed, began to feel unwanted within this Union—if you listen to the hype.
Today’s motion is not to inform our King of anything that he does not know. He understands the constitutional position as well as his mother, Queen Elizabeth the faithful, did as a Queen who served her God and her people so well. The reason for today’s motion is to make clear to those who have felt a disconnect from the Government that there can be no joint authority and no movement without consent. It is really important that we make that clear. Of course, we hear the ramblings of a determined Sinn Féin—the same absentee MPs who do not turn up here, who do not take any decisions or get involved in any Select Committees to discuss ways forward—that a united Ireland is on the horizon. That may be the case, but it will not be because the people of this nation do not want us; it will be because the people of Northern Ireland have decided. That is where the consent principle lies.
This Humble Address underlines the position of this Government—a position that many have questioned. As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said to me recently, a rebuilding of trust is needed among the Unionist people, and this is merely one step in that journey. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State and Secretary of State have committed to that principle of building trust.
I have heard many people talking about how their identity was not wrapped in a flag. It is entirely their right to say so, yet within that statement is a disparaging inference that our identity is so fragile. I know that  Members have heard this before, but I seek to remind people of what has been whitewashed and sought to be rewritten: people from every community faced horrific grief and pain. We lived a life of checking under cars, of seeing blue lights and frantically trying to think of where your family were when you heard news on TV that a bomb had gone off or something else had happened. We lived a life of heading to church and having men stationed at the doors to protect the congregation after Sunday services—of children seeing gunmen indiscriminately spraying a building, reloading and spraying their bullets once again, killing and wounding as people sought to pray. We lived a life of going to get meat from the butchers on a Saturday afternoon and having a bomb go off, or having dinner at a local restaurant where you could be set alight by napalm. Those are the lives that we from Northern Ireland all lived.
These things are important, because we are trying to find a new future and a new way forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley referred to a future that involves all of the community. The past year was the first year in which someone was not killed by terrorists—I had not realised that until my right hon. Friend said it, but that is an indication of where we are going. Our identity is not fragile, but our history is, and what kept many of us going through that time was the knowledge that we would not bow to the terrorists: we would not cower before their demands, and we would stay standing. We have done that, and today we are doing so again in this Chamber—collectively, and from all political parties.
As someone who has lost loved ones to the troubles, as many of us on this side of the House have—we all know these cases—the constitutional issue is not about the colour of a passport, but about whether the shedding of blood and the grief of a mother was of worth or was in vain. For me, that is the key issue as I try to build a future for my children and grandchildren, and for everybody else’s children and grandchildren, whatever side of the community they come from. That is the future I want to see, and I believe it is the future my people want to see. It is about whether standing against evil is honoured by this place, or forgotten by this place.
That is why today’s Humble Address is so important: it reminds the Unionist people who feel so down-trodden, unwanted and forgotten that this Union has not forsaken them, and that the Government of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are prepared to stand against the tide of unification by stealth and uphold the principle of consent. For that reason, I and my party very much welcome the Humble Address. It is the right thing to do, and it is what we want. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Steven Baker: With the leave of the House, I rise to close the debate on this Humble Address, and I am very grateful to everyone who has participated in it.
This is a Unionist Government, and we are steadfast in our belief that the best future for Northern Ireland will always be as an integral part of a strong and prosperous United Kingdom, even as we respect the legitimate rights of others to pursue another outcome. We are the most successful political and economic Union in the world, something with which a majority of Members of this House would agree. This debate has  reiterated the unwavering support for the Union across the House. We have reaffirmed the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its strands. We have acknowledged the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under article 6—much as I listened to the words of some Members opposite—and we have recognised that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.
I am most grateful to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for his speech. We are united in congratulating the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and we are absolutely united in wishing the First Minister and Deputy First Minister every success in their endeavours. It has been said several times by the shadow Secretary of State and others, but “never again”, and I think we are all united in our hope that never again will Northern Ireland go without an Executive.
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the all-island economy, which is a matter that has particular sensitivity for DUP Members, and made reference to the joint report. He asked about the effect of repealing the relevant section. As he knows, the joint report and its provisions predated our departure from the EU. Now that we have left the EU, the withdrawal agreement makes provision in fulfilment of many of those matters. The joint report to which the shadow Secretary of State referred has been superseded by the withdrawal agreement and by the trade and co-operation agreement. Of course, I know I have not taught him anything he did not know already. At the moment, we are of course in regular dialogue with the EU, and as far as we are aware, the EU is satisfied with the way we are proceeding. What I would say to him is that, at the moment, I have no reason to believe there will be any significant consequences of the repeal of that section.

Hilary Benn: I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and of course I am aware that the joint report predated the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but if it was in effect rendered redundant by that Act, why did that Act make specific provision to have regard to the joint report?

Steven Baker: Elements were relevant at the time, as the Secretary of State has just mentioned to me, but, alas, I was not the relevant Minister at the time. I did the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, not the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, if I am advised otherwise by officials after this debate, I shall certainly write to the shadow Secretary of State and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. I am not expecting to be advised that there would be significant consequences, but I shall certainly take advice.
I particularly appreciated the shadow Secretary of State’s exegesis of the Acts of Union. I am not a great historian, and I appreciated his running through those things. We are of course all absolutely united in our desire for a better future for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) welcomed the compromise and the pragmatism of everyone involved. I do not think I will tease him, as he has teased me, on that particular point. He made a very thoughtful speech about people’s ability to indicate their consent or  otherwise to membership of a particular state, and he raises some important matters that I will not have time to go into.
I particularly appreciated, of course, the leader of the DUP’s speech. I think this is a very good day for Unionism. Speaking as an English MP, even though I have been choosing to go to Northern Island since 2013, it is very easy as an English MP to neglect the Union. What we have seen through this process is that the whole Government and the whole House have come far more deeply to appreciate the need to nurture the Union. I think today is a good day for the Union, and I think the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have done a service to the whole Union by highlighting these issues and forcing us all to confront the need to nurture the Union, even if, as I think it is fair to say, it is not one of the most prominent issues in English constituencies. I certainly pay tribute to him and his DUP colleagues for what they have achieved.
As the right hon. Gentleman made a point about the red lane, and the need to improve further and move more goods out of it, which I am absolutely all for doing, I think it is worth reminding everyone of who voted for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. I believe everyone in the DUP voted for the Bill.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: indicated assent.

Steven Baker: There are nods of assent. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill established the principle that there should be a red lane, and we do need to remember that the red lane is therefore legitimate. It is something that we should all have expected. On the issues that have been invented, I think we have enough practical problems in this life without inventing additional ones.
I want to turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), because he said that Brexit is the original sin. I am going to accept the temptation that he put before me to respond on this point. Occasionally, we get the opportunity to comment on matters of historical sin, and I hope the House will forgive me if I say that to me the original sin was proceeding with the Maastricht treaty and all it meant without getting consent. It was compounded by the mortal sin of proceeding with the Lisbon treaty positively against the expressed wishes of a number of populations. That is what brought me into politics—positively establishing the European constitution by another name against the expressed wishes of populations in referenda.
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about Brexit being the original sin. Although I am tempted to say that I am an unapologetic Unionist, a waggish official reminded me earlier, “But, Minister, you’ve made a number of apologies”—apologies notably in relation to Ireland, but I do not mind sharing with the House and the public that, during the early days of my appointment to this role, I said to a number of stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland, particularly in the area of Derry/Londonderry, “Yes, I am sorry that you have been put to as much trouble as you have through this withdrawal process.” I have great sympathy with what he says, but if we can step back a little, out of this whole process, there is a lesson for those who wish to make great constitutional changes, and that is to take the public with them at all  times, but I am certainly not perfect in that regard. I for one, however, wish to put all that behind us and to move forward.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the all-Ireland economy and talked about the need for east-west and north-south to operate in harmony, and I am of one mind with him. I am absolutely all for free trade and removing all barriers to free trade wherever that can be done consistently with democratic consent.
Casement Park came up a couple of times, and we need to see a proper business case with a full statement of the costs involved. Clearly, there has been inflation in the costs, and we need to see what the full bill would be.
Revenue raising was part of the financial settlement tabled in December. The Government’s primary objective is to support stability and fiscal sustainability through a restored Executive who have the tools to deliver better outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland in an affordable way. That is why a condition of this package—specifically, the quantum of debt to be written off—will be agreed on a proportionate basis to locally raised revenue generated from the implementation of the Executive’s fiscal sustainability plan.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made a very interesting speech. I do not doubt that we have arrived where we are by a circuitous route, but here we are, and I think this is a happy day for Unionism overall. As the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the DUP said, we have a great opportunity to go forward now and make Northern Ireland work for all the people and to persuade them, in the context of those changing demographics, that they would be well placed to continue to choose to remain within the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) set me a number of questions, and I do not wish to further return to the rabbit hole he mentioned on border polls. I think I will just refer to my opening remarks, which were crafted to avoid any kind of ambiguity. He asked: when will we see action? We have seen action: we have legislated twice already, we are here for this Humble Address and we will continue to take action.
On the veterinary medicines working group, I will undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman before the week is out on the progress in establishing it, and I will place that letter in the Library so that others can see it, because I know it is a subject of the first importance, particularly to him. I shall write to him to set out our progress towards establishing that working group. I gave officials very clear instructions that we were to proceed with great haste, as swiftly as possible, to the establishment of that group and the horticulture working group. The horticulture working group is already established, and we will have further communication to do on that point.
Intertrade is dependent on the East-West Council, and we will need to work through those issues, including across Government. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that for east-west work to be effective we must properly engage, particularly with our colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and with the other devolved Administrations. Let us get this thing right. That means it will take just a little time, and I hope he can bear with me. As I said in my opening remarks, I am determined to proceed as swiftly as possible  and to keep the House informed, including on the point about the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The hon. Gentleman has already undertaken to give me the examples he mentioned, and I look forward to processing those. His history is better than mine. He referred to the Home Rule debate in 1879, and let us hope that we continue to do better than they did. They took 78 years to resolve some of those matters. We have already made swifter progress, and I am proud of it.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Minister for that. Of course, the Home Rule debates were brought to a cataclysmic end—we see on the walls of this Chamber the testament to that end and to the great war of 1914.
Has the Minister made any progress on farm machinery? That was promised during the last legislative process that we went through. Can he confirm tonight that there has been a breakthrough on the sale of eggs? People might think this is cracking, but it is not. It is important, because 80% of all eggs hatched in Northern Ireland are sold on the mainland.

Gavin Robinson: Eggs-cellent!

Ian Paisley Jnr: It is eggs-cellent. If that was not the case, and if there was a problem due to veterinary medicines, or salmonella, that matter of sales would be brought to an immediate end. Will the Minister confirm that there has been a derogation this evening for Northern Ireland with regard to the sale of eggs across the United Kingdom? [Interruption.]

Steven Baker: I do not have any “breaking” news to share with the hon. Gentleman tonight—but I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that joke, which people will recognise as being characteristic of him.
I have slightly exceeded the time that I intended to take. I listened carefully to the speech from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), and I have considerable sympathy with the points she makes. I think I accepted in my opening remarks that this is a hard compromise for Unionists and Eurosceptics, but I remain convinced and resolute that we have taken forward measures that respect the legitimate interests of Unionism in Northern Ireland and across the whole UK, and that move matters forward.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, made a great speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) caused me in his challenge to doubt myself on the issue of VAT,  so I want to affirm the position. The position on VAT is clear: the framework secured legally binding changes so that Northern Ireland benefits from the same VAT and alcohol taxes as in the rest of the UK. Those have been used to introduce reliefs on energy saving materials, to apply alcohol duty reforms UK wide, and to ensure that draught relief applies for beer sold in all UK pubs. Those benefits are being felt now in Northern Ireland and across the UK.
The hon. Member for North Antrim raised EORIs and I will be glad to return to that issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) mentioned plant trade, and I am pleased that, like her, businesses have welcomed measures in the Command Paper. Earlier this month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a letter from prominent Northern Ireland horticultural businesses stating that, thankfully, with the restauration of the Executive they are already experiencing positive feedback from their suppliers in Great Britain, who are “optimistic” about trading with them without any challenges.
Let me be expressly clear once again: Northern Ireland’s position is based on consent. The task for those of us who want the Union to prosper is to consider how we broaden support for Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in a world that is very different from the one in which the agreement was reached in 1998. No one could really add to the speech made with great skill by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Democratic Unionist party. Central to that approach has to be to make Northern Ireland work and flourish, and to do so for everyone, regardless of their community background or political aspirations, which we absolutely respect. The Government will continue to work to deliver the suite of commitments made under the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, and continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly Members to improve the lives of people living in Northern Ireland. Once again, I commend the Humble Address to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty welcoming the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, re-affirming the importance of upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in all its strands, acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts, and recognising that, consistent with section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.

Social Media Access in Prisons

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Wood.)

Paul Howell: Why am I here talking about social media in prisons? One of my usual expressions for describing what it is like to be an MP is “push and pull”, meaning that I push my experience and knowledge into this place, but I am pulled by the issues that affect my constituents. I bring my life experience and business background, and I react to issues that arise, particularly those from my constituents. That is why I have been engaged on issues as diverse as left-behind neighbourhoods, Ferryhill station and female hormone deficiency.
Today I take the opportunity to discuss two of the most challenging issues facing young people: knife crime, and the damage done by social media. Those problems were horrifically exemplified by the case of my constituent Zoey McGill, and her son Jack Woodley, who was tragically stabbed to death in 2021. The past few years have been incredibly challenging for Zoey. Although her son’s murderers were jailed for between eight and 17 years, one can imagine her horror when she discovered that one of them had made a TikTok video in which he raps about his sentence, implying that it is not serious, and he boasts of having a phone while wearing a designer T-shirt.
As a result of my work with Zoey I became involved in The Northern Echo’s North East Knife Crime Taskforce. It was launched last year as a way to co-ordinate the efforts of individuals and groups who want to address the causes of knife crime and change the culture and mindset of young people who carry those weapons. Zoey has been involved in that from the start, along with other parents who also lost their children. We are seeing far too many examples of young people being stabbed, and leaving behind relatives fighting for a cause. As was said at the last session of the North East Knife Crime Taskforce, those parents and families did not sign up for that job, but they have absolutely no choice but to do it. One of those is Theresa Cave, whose son Chris was stabbed to death in Redcar in 2003. Chris’s mother, Theresa, launched the POINT 7 anti-gun and knife crime programme for young people aged 11 to 25.
In 2007, Samantha Jane Madgin was 18 years old and on her first night out with friends after the birth of her son only weeks before. She was brutally stabbed  to death by a 15-year-old girl. Samantha’s friends and family created Samantha’s Legacy, and their mission is to prevent knife crime, raise awareness and engagement, and support other families who have been affected by that atrocious crime. In 2019, 18-year-old Connor Brown, who was on a night out in Sunderland, tragically lost his life trying to prevent other people from getting hurt  in a knife attack. Connor’s mother, Tanya, and family and friends created the Connor Brown Trust in order  to provide young people with a bespoke youth work programme that benefits them and the wider community. There are too many families like them, and it is imperative that we in this place do all we can to help.
Social media is well identified as a source of information in prisons. The term “fake news” is well known, and it is imperative that those who have been influenced or radicalised by false agendas are not further influenced in that way during their time in prison. For that reason  alone, access to social media platforms in prison should be frustrated. I am concerned enough about what inmates could see and hear on social media, but giving them the opportunity to broadcast is even more disturbing. It is incumbent on us all in this place to do everything we can to stop this cancer.
Zoey recently said that people sometimes ask how she manages to do her campaigning, and she said that it gives her strength and comfort. I admire that attitude enormously, but neither Zoey nor any of the other parents I have mentioned, or any other parent that is affected, should be in this position in the first place. As gov.uk states, for anyone who cares to check, it is a criminal offence to give a prisoner a mobile phone—or other items such as illegal drugs, alcohol and weapons. The rules around access to social media in prison are likewise clear: prisoners are not allowed to access social networking sites while in custody. In fact, it is not even possible to email prisoners directly.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I did some research in this area, as he has. Does he agree that there is no human right allowing access to social media in prison? We should encourage rehabilitation—that is the right thing to do—rather than social media engagement. Although access to the internet, and training in understanding how to use media successfully in the outside world, are of use, the ability to post a Facebook status should never be facilitated in prison.

Paul Howell: I could not agree more, and I will cover some of those points as I continue. The closest those inside are meant to come to electronic communication is the Email a Prisoner service, which allows those outside prison to send a prisoner an email; it is printed out and delivered on paper. Some prisons will allow photos to be attached, but that is all. I suspect that if prisoners were actually limited to that form of communication, prisons and the wider community would be better for it.
Nevertheless, as a Ministry of Justice report from 2018 recognised,
“Mobile phones in prisons are used for a range of purposes, both social and criminal, and would appear to have become a significant feature of prison life.”
Since that report, the Prison Service has undertaken the long-term project of installing landlines in cells in closed public-sector prisons. That began before the pandemic. The last installations are due to be completed shortly. These phones work the same way as the payphones on landings that were previously used by prisoners. The prisoner uses a PIN to access their account, and must purchase credit. The calls are restricted to cleared numbers and are outgoing only.
This innovation prevents the issues that often occurred with landing payphones, such as a lack of privacy and fights breaking out in the queue. As Julie Brett, deputy director of innovation and business change at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, told Inside Time:
“Feedback from people in prison has consistently identified that in-cell PIN phones improve the quantity and quality of contact with their family and friends thanks to the opportunities they provide. These include being able to make calls at a time to suit everyone in a more private setting away from busy landings, and removing the need to queue to use a phone during brief unlock periods.”
That seems to me to be well in excess of what prisoners should have, but it also removes any argument about the need for them to have access to a mobile phone. I therefore believe that prisoners have no legitimate reason to possess a mobile phone, since a desire to contact their family is probably the only reason for a prisoner having a phone that most people could possibly sympathise with. Instead, prisoners look for mobile phones to continue their criminal activity, to harass victims and their families, or to remain in connection with the lifestyle that got them into prison in the first place. It must stop.
I draw attention to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) has done on phones in prison, particularly though her private Member’s Bill. It is already an offence to make video recordings in prison, but the Prison Media Bill seeks to close a loophole that allows third parties outside a prison to upload an illegal recording made inside a prison, or of prison workers on prison land. The Bill also specifies that the location of a recording device is not relevant, so recording a prison from a drone outside would still be an offence. The Bill will clarify existing legislation, which makes no specific provision for drones flying above prison land or recording images of the inside of an open prison. It is hoped that it will increase the security of prisons and those who work there; they would also be protected from unauthorised recordings. Moreover, the Bill would likely cause social media companies to remove images and videos that violate those conditions. Such a step would make all the difference to people like Zoey, who continues to be harassed by her son’s murderers and their families via social media and images taken in prison.
One can debate whether the primary purpose of prison sentences is to rehabilitate the prisoner with a view to reintegrating them in society, or to punish them for their crimes, but a denial of liberty, and therefore of social media, is necessary in both cases.

Richard Foord: I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this Adjournment debate. It is awful to hear about the appalling experience of his constituent, a victim of knife crime. Her campaign on access to social media is brave. In 2013, the Government sought to take from prisoners the right to access and read books. The Howard League for Penal Reform fought against that in its successful 2014 campaign, which was all about education and rehabilitation. Does the hon. Member believe as I do that prisoners ought to have access to books?

Paul Howell: It is like anything else: it depends which books we are talking about. If it is books about how to develop a new gun, the answer is no, but if you are talking about—[Interruption.] My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. We could, however, be talking about educational books about the world prisoners want to go into. As with everything else in this place, the devil is in the detail of what we do.
A question in this case is: how can a person be rehabilitated if they still participate in the same social groups as before? They may do so virtually, but for many young people, their virtual activities are as real and meaningful as their physical ones. We would not allow prisoners serving time for murder to leave for the  evening and have a drink with their friends, so why should we tolerate them having unmonitored video calls with the same people?
The purpose of prison—especially for serious crimes—ought to be punishment. It is no bad thing if prisoners are sat in their cells, sadly wondering what is going on with their old friends and feeling out of touch with the outside world. The denial of liberty and restricted access to the world outside prison is exactly the point of being locked up. The rules are clear: mobile phones are not allowed among prisoners. Jack’s killer should never have been able to make or post a video. I also question why the murderer should be dressed in a designer T-shirt, looking to all and sundry as though he is about to go on a night out.
In response to Zoey’s complaint, the Prison Service said that mobile phones are not tolerated, and that those who have them face extra time in prison. May I ask the Minister what is happening in this case, and what steps are being taken to prevent something like this from happening again? What repercussions have followed for this individual? We must demonstrate that actions have consequences; otherwise, we give the impression that the justice system thinks it is acceptable to show off contraband such as mobile phones in prison, and to use it to harass a victim’s family.
Steps such as airport-style security are taken to prevent contraband, but whatever the current approach is, it needs more energy, because this is not an isolated case of a prisoner possessing a phone. I acknowledge that we are taking steps in the right direction. Legislation was passed last October to crack down on the use of drones in prison. Previously, bizarrely, police could act on drone sightings near prisons only if there was evidence that drones were being used to smuggle contraband. Why else would a person fly a drone above a prison? To admire the architecture? I think not.
Since last month, it has become an offence to fly a drone within 400 metres of closed prisons and young offenders’ institutes in England and Wales. A fine of £2,500 could be issued for flying a drone, but, importantly, for those who deliver the goods, the punishment could be up to 10 years in prison. We have seen intercepted drone deliveries carrying more than £35,000 of banned goods, but some of that was before the law changed. I am delighted to see that change in law.
On contraband in prison, it seems to me that mobile phones should be the easiest to find and remove from the prison estate. The technology to find them exists, and it would make a significant difference in the behaviour of prisoners if used widely. For example, the company Unify offers a “detect” service that provides constant mobile detection and sends real-time alerts when it picks up unauthorised use of mobile phones. Using Bluetooth and wi-fi signals, it can locate the precise location of the phone, down to the cell. Can the Minister tell me how widely such technology is used in prisons to combat the use of mobile phones? Would his Department consider expanding its use?
With phones come social media. I do not need to tell hon. Members about the harm that social media can cause, even among users who have not been convicted of murder. In a place like prison, social media can be even more influential, as it is one of the few forms of contact used to get to the outside world. We know that  it amplifies the peer pressure that young people already face, and it has been linked to poor mental health in teenagers.
Technology and social media can also be used positively to address issues such as knife crime. We have seen many examples of social media pressure being a key part of driving young people to action that results in them being in prison. Some exciting technology is being worked on—particularly in virtual reality—which could help. The EdTech company Round Midnight has done pioneering work, using art and technology, to engage young people in discussions on many sensitive topics. It offers a range of virtual reality workshops, and creates curriculums designed to transform students’ learning experience while tackling important social issues.
The company’s youth engagement programmes promote mental wellbeing and social responsibility, and address critical issues such as knife crime. I have seen an example of its work, in which it uses people who have been involved in knife crime as actors, and the person having the virtual experience is left to make decisions at various stages, based on questions they are asked. It is interactive, and something that they can learn from; they can see the consequences without being in a real world scenario.
The pressure that social media can put on people absorbed in that world is intense. The company I mentioned is the leading provider of virtual reality workshops. It creates bespoke programmes and trains teachers in schools across the country. Most importantly, its approach works, because it focuses on areas that the target audience cares about. The recent North East Knife Crime Taskforce event, led by The Northern Echo, allowed participants to use a virtual reality headset to explore the potential consequences of carrying a knife. The video was created with funding from the Home Office and West Midlands police, based on a similar tool that focused on gangs. They believe that it can be an important preventive tool for people who are not involved in crime but could be pressured into it or tempted by it.
The headset demonstrates how social media is used to pressure people to commit crime. I am interested in whether it can be developed as a tool for people who are in prison to understand how they got there, and how the outcome could have been different for them and their family. The virtual reality video is followed by a creative workshop that encourages participants to explore the issues in more depth. Young people can reflect on their journey through the video, and compare their experience with that of other participants. The session is not a lecture about the dangers of carrying a knife but a user-led experience.
When I was working on left-behind neighbourhoods, we talked initially about trying to help communities, then about helping them to help themselves, and finally about enabling them to help themselves without us being there in any way, shape or from. The same applies here: we are trying to create a situation in which the people who are engaging in the process feel that it is their space and they can learn from it.
Innovative approaches involving virtual reality could be used to prepare inmates for reintegration in society, with a view to reducing reoffending. There are examples around the world: in the United States, Colorado has implemented a three-year juveniles and young adults  convicted as adults programme, for those who committed serious offences at a young age. Since those people often entered prison before they developed life skills such as shopping for food, the virtual reality programme allows them to practise tasks in a safe and controlled environment. Knife crime is a much bigger issue, but the principle is the same. Other states use virtual reality to help offenders develop empathy for their victims or to reduce aggressive behaviour. A pilot programme in Alaska used virtual reality to incorporate mindfulness practices; the pilot resulted in a decrease in disciplinary write-ups and fewer reports of depression and anxiety. Those processes can move people to a better place.
We know that employment can be a problem. In Michigan, there is a virtual reality programme that helps people practise for a job interview. There are many examples of people running prisons and similar services using the tool to get people to a better place. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) mentioned the opportunity for books; I want people to get to a better place by the time they are released, but if they are not, they must understand that there are consequences of what they have done.
The professor who led the study I just referred to commented:
“Above just the employment rate, those that interviewed with Molly”—
the virtual hiring manager—
“had stronger interview skills…greater reductions in interview anxiety”.
I am absolutely sure that such organisations can develop programmes that will deliver much better outcomes for repeat offenders and an appreciation of the impact of social media on others. Social media can be such a positive or negative experience, depending on how people engage with it, and such tools can get us to that place.
Music videos on social media can also influence people in a way that is difficult to imagine for those of us who did not grow up with social media. Many videos glamorise a life of crime, treating serious offences as proof of strength and encouraging others to follow suit. It is the lyrics of these songs that are the problem, not the music style itself. A number of organisations have used the same type of music, such as rap and hip-hop, as a way to access young people and give them a positive message. For example, Scotland’s largest prison, Barlinnie, has begun offering a programme that gives inmates an opportunity to change their lives through hip-hop music. The label Conviction Records supports ex-offenders by running a programme that culminates in a performance of their pieces. The workshops allow prisoners to express themselves and envisage a better life outside, at the end of their sentence. One participant said that it had given him such a sense of purpose it motivated him to avoid reoffending. That is what we want for people coming out—we do not want them to reoffend. The programme was funded by Creative Scotland. Does the Minister know of any similar plans for prisons in England and Wales, and, if not, whether we could look at similar initiatives?
Speaking with Zoey recently, she was quick to emphasise the benefits of social media, along with the horrendous damage it can do. She spoke about how last week would have been Jack’s 21st birthday. In honour of him—how brave is this?—she posted a video of their final moments  together, when it was clear he was about to pass away. She said it has since been viewed nearly 2 million times and the feedback has been almost universally positive. In particular, a man contacted her to say that he used to be in a gang and had lost his best friend to knife crime. He now educates young people about the dangers of that life to help them to make better decisions. It is about getting the tools that have been used against people turned around and moving in the right direction. If rap is the thing that people engage with, then fine—but let us find rap people who are positive to this agenda. Zoey has found people like that, and I really do applaud them.
The problem we have is that the work of people involved in The Northern Echo’s North East Knife Crime Taskforce can so easily be undermined by posts such as the one by Jack’s killer, which give the impression that knife crime is not serious and prison is not a punishment. That is just so wrong. We cannot force a person to feel remorse for what they have done—that man clearly does not—but we can take steps to prevent them from influencing others to do the same. To do that effectively, crimes involving social media have to be taken more seriously. Zoey is still trying to get the police to deal with her son’s murderers and their families, who have been posting confidential documents about Jack on TikTok and Facebook which they obtained during the trial. She has found the process to be tortuously slow.
I would like the Minister to affirm that prison needs to be a deterrent and needs to be seen to be so. We need consequences of actions to be publicised, not hidden. We need education for those in prison on how they could react differently given their time again. We need victims like Zoey, Theresa, Samantha, Tanya, and the far too many others impacted, to have the protection of the system to prevent further distress from those convicted, and the belief that the lessons from each of their experiences are being applied far and wide to reduce occurrences of these shattering crimes.
I would like to understand what is being done to frustrate access to tools that enable social media access. What is being done to stop victims like Zoey suffering further? I would like to see that we can use tools to educate and inform those who have made mistakes, but we must also ensure that those who do not recognise their errors are not given platforms to promote their actions.

Edward Argar: As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. You will be reassured to know that I do not intend to take all the time available and speak until 10.30 pm, but I am genuinely pleased that in a debate of such significance we have enough time to address the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), whom I congratulate on securing it.
I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathies for my hon. Friend’s constituent Zoey McGill, the bereaved mother of Jack. For Jack’s murderer to have been allegedly using TikTok in prison is sickening, and no parent should have to suffer in this way. That is one of the reasons I stand at the Dispatch Box this evening to respond to my hon. Friend and explain how the Government plan to prevent such incidents from happening in the future.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Argar: How can I say no to the hon. Gentleman?

Jim Shannon: The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said that the video had been made in prison, and the other people involved were in prison. Surely, given the clear evidential base, there must be a methodology enabling the governor to take this person to task and impose sanctions to ensure that he spends a longer time in prison.

Edward Argar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, because I will turn to that specific point. However, I want to begin by highlighting the close interest that my hon. Friend has taken in this horrific case on behalf of his constituent. As we all know, he is unfailingly courteous, diligent and passionate as a constituency Member, when acting and speaking on behalf of his constituents, but I think he would acknowledge that however diligent he is in relation to all cases, some cases have a real impact on an individual Member of Parliament, and I suspect that this is one of them. He and I have spoken about this case on a number of occasions, and I pay tribute to his work on behalf of his constituent, but I can reassure the House that no sooner did it hit his desk than it hit my own desk and my mobile phone.
I also thank my hon. Friend for raising the extremely important and challenging issue of knife crime—a crime that destroys lives and, so often, not just the lives of those who are not carrying knives and who end up as innocent victims. We also need to remember, and to remind people, that those who carry knives are at serious risk of being victims themselves. The Government take the threat posed by knife crime incredibly seriously, as has been demonstrated by our investment of £170 million since 2019 alone on prevention and enforcement initiatives in the 20 policing areas where violent crime is most prominent. That includes Northumbria, which covers Newcastle, Sunderland, and the surrounding area. Through those initiatives, an estimated 136,000 violent offences across the country have been prevented in the first three years of their operation. As a result of these efforts, together with the broader Home Office serious violence strategy, 120,000 weapons have been removed from Britain’s streets, and knife crime is now 7% below pre-pandemic levels.
I also want to acknowledge the important work of the North East Knife Crime Taskforce. I am aware of the vital work that it does—not least from the representations made to me by my hon. Friend—and of how it brings together victims’ families, representatives of sports clubs, teachers and people from across the criminal justice system to share ideas and forward-thinking strategies to help prevent lives from being lost on our streets. This relatively new organisation, founded last year, has been set up and driven by that national institution The Northern Echo and by brave local parents, including Zoey McGill. Let me take a moment to pay tribute to her for her dignity in the face of a terrible tragedy, and her willingness to put herself out there to try to make a difference and prevent this from happening to other families. In that vein, I should recognise, as my hon. Friend did, Theresa on behalf of Chris, Samantha’s family and friends, and Tanya on behalf of Connor.
As constituency Members of Parliament and as a House, we owe a huge debt to those who have suffered the most unthinkable things, but who want to make a difference and prevent them from happening to anyone else. Tackling knife crime and preventing future victims is a policy area led by my colleagues in the Home Office, but I will be very happy to work with my hon. Friend and Home Office colleagues to see what can be done to work with the taskforce.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned that Jack Woodley’s murderer allegedly being able to access social media potentially undermines the criminal justice system and, of course, torments the families of victims. That is clearly unacceptable, which is why my Department has invested in the digital media investigations unit. As soon as it spots or is alerted to prisoner misuse of social media, it acts swiftly to work with social media companies to have the content taken down. In the case of Jack’s murderer, the team did just that: they quickly and thoroughly investigated that social media misuse, and successfully worked with TikTok to remove the content—and, indeed, the account—within three hours of it coming to our attention. I appreciate that this will frustrate my hon. Friend, but I must be a bit cautious about speaking about the details of that specific case in the public forum of the Floor of the House.
We are clear that there are robust systems in place to prevent and address poor behaviour in prisons, including serious rule breaking. Under section 40D(3A) of the Prison Act 1952, those caught with a mobile phone can face referral to the police and extra custodial time for the offence of possessing a communications device in a prison without authorisation, while those who are caught smuggling in phones can face the same consequences under section 40B(1)(a) of the same Act. As the Minister responsible for prisons, I am increasingly concerned by photos and videos from custody being shared on social media. Such content traumatises victims, can intimidate prison staff and threatens the security of our prisons. It is indeed a critical issue, and I recognise the impact that this type of online material can have on victims of crime and their families.
In separate cases from those mentioned by my hon. Friend, I was made aware that a parent whose son had been murdered contacted His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service after seeing photos on social media that were posted from prison by their son’s murderer. HMPPS reported the content to the platform in question but, regrettably, it remained online. In another example, the victim of an assault contacted HMPPS about a video of their attacker in prison, who talked for almost 15 minutes about the offence and was disparaging about the victim. Again, HMPPS reported the video to the platform on which it was hosted but, regrettably, it remained online. I cannot imagine the distress that seeing those posts must have caused.
As my hon. Friend stated, we cannot allow prisoners to use illegal phones to engage in criminality from behind bars. The Ministry of Justice has a zero-tolerance approach to illegal phones, and prisoners caught smuggling illicit items can and, rightly, do face extra time behind bars, a loss of privileges and other sanctions. The most serious crimes, including those where a mobile phone has been used for criminal activity or identified as  belonging to a prisoner who is a high-risk offender, are also referred to the police, in line with the crime in prison referral agreement. We have a commitment from the Crown Prosecution Service that it will always seek to prosecute in serious cases. Moreover, prisoners are not permitted to have unsupervised access to the internet or any access to social media. Again, they can be punished if they access the internet without authorisation. Under national policy, prisoners can only access the internet in a supervised environment, and only for rehabilitative purposes.
We are clear that harmful social media content posted from prison should not have a home online and that we need to take effective action to remove it. Clearly, the current legislation does not quite go far enough, which is why the Government are committed to supporting the Prison Media Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher). The Bill tackles the issue of harmful media, such as videos and images created within, or showing the inside of, prisons, being uploaded to social media platforms by strengthening existing legislation—namely, the Prison Act 1952. Crucially, the Bill would close existing loopholes, because although it is currently illegal for a person to upload content from inside a prison, it is not yet illegal for a person in the community to upload media that they have been sent by someone in custody. This means that social media companies need to try to establish whether content was uploaded from inside a prison, to determine whether it is unlawful.
The Bill would make the uploading of all unauthorised prison content illegal, regardless of whether it is uploaded from within a prison or from within the community. The Bill will also address loopholes around the creation of prison content. While it is currently illegal to film inside a prison, the law is not clear that it is illegal to film the inside of a prison from the outside—for example, by drone—or to film staff from outside the prison walls. For example, videos taken from above by drone can pose security risks by showing the lay-out of buildings in detail as well as the movement of staff and prisoners, thereby helping prisoners to smuggle in drugs or weapons. The Bill provides a solution to these issues by making it an offence to create or upload unauthorised media of the inside of a prison from outside or of prison workers on prison land. These measures will remove any ambiguity and bring the law up to date.
This is a wide-ranging problem with real-world impacts. I have mentioned a just few examples today, but in 2022 and 2023 combined, HMPPS identified and reported over 1,200 pieces of harmful prison content. The Bill will support the work of HMPPS’s specialist digital media investigations unit that I have already referenced. Last year this Government passed the Online Safety Act 2023, placing world-first legal duties on social media platforms to protect the public from harmful online material. If this additional Bill passes, we will explore how content created of or inside prisons could be added to the list of priority illegal content in the Online Safety Act, meaning that social media companies would be required by law to proactively remove it.
My hon. Friend touched on the significant investment already made by the Department in stopping mobile phones being smuggled into the prison estate. We finished delivering our £100 million security investment programme in March 2022. We continue to adapt and develop our  countermeasures to tackle new methods as they emerge. That investment included the deployment of 75 additional X-ray body scanners, allowing staff to see whether prisoners are smuggling illegal contraband, including phones, internally. This means that we have the ability in every single closed adult male prison to detect illicit items via X-ray. This is particularly important as some phones, known as micro-mobiles, are no bigger than a matchbox. They are small, easily concealed and hard to detect. Between July 2020 and October 2023, the X-ray body scanners have recorded 46,925 positive indications, helping to tackle the supply of mobile phones and drugs into prisons.
The programme also delivered airport-style enhanced gate security at 42 high-risk prison sites across the private and public prison estate, implementing routine searching of staff and visitors. This investment paid for 659 specialist staff, 154 drugs dogs and more than 200 pieces of equipment, including archway and handheld metal detectors. These are vital tools in stopping mobile phones and SIM cards circulating in our prisons. We have procured, developed and installed a variety of detection and other mobile phone technologies across the estate, targeting prisoners that represent the highest risk of harm through illicit phone use.
I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I always try to be as open as I can in this public forum, but I cannot go into in as much detail as he would wish about the specifics of what the equipment does, where it is deployed or the extent of its capability, or disclose suppliers due to security and commercial sensitivities and to protect the tactics involved. It is vital that those seeking to undermine our defences are not given any information that helps them to do so, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend separately and privately to discuss this area in more detail and hopefully provide him with further reassurance about our capabilities in this respect. He mentioned virtual reality, and that is an area I will look into further. We will consider the merits of potential options that would allow for VR delivery in regard to the training and rehabilitation of prisoners.
As my hon. Friend highlighted, in October 2023 we also introduced new legislation to crack down on criminals using drones to deliver contraband including mobile phones into prisons. The new airspace restrictions make it an automatic offence to fly drones within 400 metres of any closed prison or young offender institution in England and Wales. Drone operators who break the rules could face fines of up to £2,500, while those found smuggling illicit items will face up to 10 years in prison. These restrictions mean that police and prison staff can quickly identify suspicious drones and take action against suspected criminal activity, including the illegal filming of prison establishments. We are also investing in a new digital forensics unit to interrogate devices smuggled into jails, to produce improved evidence that is more likely to bring a successful prosecution in court.
Of course, as my hon. Friend said, there is fundamentally no need for a prisoner to be in possession of a mobile phone. The last installations of landlines across all   closed public sector prisons in England and Wales are due to be completed this month. These phones are installed in prisoners’ cells to enable closer family ties and to improve safety on wings where payphones on landings were previously used. A PIN is used to access a prisoner’s account, and credit must be purchased in advance. The calls are restricted to security-cleared numbers and are outgoing only. Furthermore, since 2020, all prisons across England and Wales are able to offer social video calls with approved family members and friends, in addition to existing means of contact including social visits, phone calls and letters.
I commend my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of how young offenders can engage positively with a wide range of rehabilitative endeavours, such as music, helping them to move away from criminality and to rebuild their lives.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) mentioned books, and he alluded to an example from when our parties were in coalition in 2014. He is right to highlight the importance of books but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, we need to exercise a degree of caution. I had the privilege of visiting HMP Leicester last week, and I saw its amazing prison library and the work it does with the Shannon Trust and the National Literacy Trust. I have about 2,000 books cluttering my house, but we all know the power of books to give people new ideas and new opportunities to make a positive start.
I echo the views of my hon. Friend: sentencing has five objectives, one of which is to deter people from committing crime, and depriving people of their liberty represents a significant deterrent. Of course, those sentenced to custody are paying a debt to society and to the people they offended against. Prison also protects the public by keeping in custody those convicted by the courts.
The core role of protecting the public from serious offenders should also extend to giving those in custody a positive choice not to pursue a lawless life but to set out on the straight and narrow. This means that they do not reoffend, which means fewer victims of crime in all the communities we represent. It is important that we recognise that creating and uploading social media content from within prison does not form part of that rehabilitative journey. I urge colleagues across the House to close the loophole by supporting the Prison Media Bill’s Second Reading on Friday.
I pay tribute to Zoey and others who have seen their families ripped apart by the horror of knife crime and other violent crime. They will know that, in my hon. Friend, they have a fantastic champion and a genuinely caring and dogged advocate in this House. I believe we have made significant progress, but there is always more to do, and we are determined to do it.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.